Lindenwood University Digital Commons@Lindenwood University
Dissertations Theses & Dissertations
Spring 4-2012
An Inquiry into Workplace Incivility: Perceptions of Working Graduate Students
Ashley E. Greene Lindenwood University
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/dissertations
Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons
Recommended Citation Greene, Ashley E., "An Inquiry into Workplace Incivility: Perceptions of Working Graduate Students" (2012). Dissertations. 488. https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/dissertations/488
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses & Dissertations at Digital Commons@Lindenwood University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Lindenwood University. For more information, please contact [email protected].
An Inquiry into Workplace Incivility: Perceptions of
Working Graduate Students
by
Ashley E. Greene
A Dissertation submitted to the Education Faculty of Lindenwood University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of
Doctor of Education
School of Education
Acknowledgements
I would like to extend my utmost sincere thanks to my committee chair, Dr. Lynda
Leavitt. The success of my completion of this process is truly accredited to your commitment and determination to not let me fail. You never lost vision of knowing that one day I would cross the finish line. I am deeply grateful for all of your time in and out of the office regardless of your full schedule to help me anyway you could. I could not ask for a better supporter and friend throughout during this process than you. To my committee members: Dr. Sherrie Wisdom, I am so thankful for all of your time and assistance that you dedicated throughout my process. You always showed enthusiasm and encouragement in our discussions and helped me find a way through the statistics and other obstacles. Dr. Beth Kania-Gosche thank you for all of your support, research, knowledge sharing, and progress check-ins along the way, and Dr. Angela Holden, thank you for your support and assistance especially during the coordination and implementation of the survey segment of my research gathering. Extended thanks: Dr.
Deb Ayres, Dr. Cynthia Bice, Dr. Rick Boyle, Dr. James Evans, Dr. Larry Matthews, Dr.
Terry Stewart, and Dr. JannWeitzel. Supportive thanks to: Dr. Mike McKinne, Dr. Dan
Kemper, Dr. Mark Lerman, Dr. Cindy Manjounes, Mr. Terry St. Clair, and the 2010 spring semester working graduate student participants. Special thanks to fellow doctoral cohort Dr. Karolina Lapinska-Schneider for your assistance with my survey segment and always offering to help. A very special thanks to my Mom. It is because of your GRITS that I chose to pursue the need to campaign the importance of civility. Thank you for always ‗non relinques‘ during this experience and reminding me of the importance of my topic and where it is needed most. To my family and friends, thank you for all of your
i
encouragement, genuine interest, and continued support during my years of research and writing.
ii
Abstract
The purpose of this sequential mixed methods study was to examine and determine the level of incivility in the workplace as a growing problem from the perceptional views of graduate students enrolled in accelerated degree programs for graduate studies in Business Administration, Criminal Justice Administration,
Gerontology, Health Management, and Human Resource Management at a private
Midwestern university. Modest research on the subject of incivility in the workplace has emerged only recently to identify the problem exists in today‘s workforce, while studies inclusive of diverse populations of employees with short and long term career paths and ranges of employment service years are not visible in the literature. As a baseline for this study, a populace of 405 working graduate students defined what constitutes civil and uncivil behavior in the workplace. Through survey instrumentation and interview discussion the researcher gathered demographics from participants including gender and generation, determined similarities and differences, as well as established common themes. Several measureable impacts of incivility in the workplace were examined to uncover participant views towards employee job satisfaction, employee productivity, and the effectiveness of employees and their management‘s responsiveness towards identifying and sustaining incidents of incivility in the workplace. Additional examination of verbal and non-verbal behaviors associated with incivility in the workplace, perceptions of employees‘ awareness of their own contributions to incivility in the workplace, and uses of technology in the workplace as E-Incivility were included in this study.
iii
Results generated from quantitative data revealed a weak significance between the demographic groups of working graduate student perceptions towards incivility as a growing problem in the workplace, employee job satisfaction, and job productivity.
Subsequent results from additional quantitative data showed faint correlations of working graduate students effectiveness in preventative measures as well as their own contributions of incivility in the workplace. Interview discussions validated perceptions and beliefs that technology use in the workplace is a growing problem of E-Incivility.
Conclusively, content from interview discussions provided the researcher insight of whether incivility in the workplace occurs in sporadic bursts or as a daily recurring pattern, resulting in the researcher‘s determination that reinstating civility is of great importance.
iv
Table of Contents
List of Tables ...... x
List of Figures ...... xiii
Chapter One: Introduction ...... 1
Background of the Study ...... 1
Statement of Problem ...... 4
Professional Significance of the Problem ...... 5
Overview of Methodology ...... 6
Research Questions ...... 7
Hypotheses ...... 8
Definition of Terms ...... 10
Limitations ...... 12
Conclusion ...... 13
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...... 15
Introduction ...... 15
Civil Theoretical Framework ...... 15
Incivility ...... 177
Stress Factors Cause for Incivility ...... 19
Workplace Organizational Culture and Climate ...... 20
Cubical Work Settings / Desk Rage...... 21
Good Ettiquette and Manners ...... 22
Incivility in Health Care and Service ...... 23
Legal Professions and Law Enforcement Civility Standards ...... 24
v
Incivility of Office Ettiquette ...... 25
Technology and e-Incivility ...... 28
Cell Phones/Blackberries ...... 29
E-mail ...... 30
Influences of Incivility in Social Media ...... 31
Negative Effects of Incivility on Employees ...... 33
Loss of Productivity ...... 35
Confronting Incivility ...... 37
Summary ...... 38
Chapter Three: Methodology ...... 40
Method Design ...... 40
Research Questions ...... 42
Hypotheses ...... 43
Research Context ...... 46
Population ...... 48
Instrumentation ...... 50
Demographics of Survey Participants ...... 51
Gathering of Data ...... 60
Data Analysis ...... 66
Summary ...... 66
Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Findings ...... 69
Overview ...... 69
Survey Participants ...... 69
vi
Interview Participants……………………………………………...………………….70
Research Questions ...... 72
Hypotheses ...... 73
Analysis of Data ...... 75
Research Question 1 ...... 76
Research Question 1 Survey Qualitative Results ...... 77
Research Question 1 Interview Qualitative Results ...... 82
Summary of Research Question 1 ...... 85
Research Question 2 ...... 86
Research Question 2 Quantitative Results ...... 86
Research Question 2 Qualitative Results ...... 88
Research Question 2 Interview Qualitative Results ...... 90
Summary of Research Question 2 ...... 92
Research Question 3 ...... 93
Research Question 3 Quantitative Results ...... 94
Research Question 3 Interview Qualitative Results ...... 96
Summary of Research Question 3 ...... 100
Research Question 4 ...... 101
Research Question 4 Quantitative Results ...... 101
Summary of Research Question 4 ...... 104
Research Question 5 ...... 105
Research Question 5 Quantitative Results ...... 105
Research Question 5 Qualitative Results ...... 111
vii
Summary of Research Question 5 ...... 115
Research Question 6 ...... 117
Research Question 6 Quantitative Results ...... 117
Research Question 6 Interview Qualitative Results ...... 123
Research Question 6 Interview Qualitative Results ...... 124
Summary of Research Question 6 ...... 127
Research Question 7 ...... 129
Research Question 7 Quantitative Results ...... 129
Research Question 7 Qualitative Results ...... 129
Research Question 7 Interview Qualitative Results ...... 146
Summary of Research Question 7 ...... 154
Research Question 8 ...... 155
Research Question 8 Quantitative Results ...... 155
Research Question 8 Qualitative Results ...... 156
Research Question 8 Interview Qualitative Results ...... 158
Summary of Research Question 8 ...... 160
Research Question 9 ...... 164
Research Question 9 Qualitative Results ...... 165
Research Question 9 Interview Qualitative Results ...... 166
Summary of Research Question 9 ...... 173
Research Question 10 ...... 194
Research Question 10 Quantitative Results ...... 194
Summary of Research Question 10 ...... 202
viii
Summary ...... 202
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations...... 204
Overview of Results ...... 204
Methodology Design ...... 204
Findings and Results ...... 205
Themes and Observations ...... 210
Connotation ...... 212
Proposal of Limitations ...... 213
Council of Future Studies ...... 215
Summary ...... 216
References ...... 218
Appendices ...... 229
Vitae ...... 254
ix
List of Tables
Table 1. A Civil Person’s Handy List: Behavior to Avoid in the Workplace ...... 27
Table 2. Accelerated Graduate Degrees ...... 46
Table 3. Spring Quarter 2010 Graduate Student Enrollment...... 48
Table 4. 2010 Spring Quarter Graduate Satellite Campuses ...... 63
Table 5. 2010 Spring Quarter Graduate Survey ...... 64
Table 6. Working Graduate Student Interviewee Demographic ...... 68
Table 7. Graduate Student Workplace Incivility Survey Civil Definition
Descriptive Key Words ...... 75
Table 8. Graduate Student Workplace Incivility Survey Uncivil Definition
Descriptive Key Words ...... 77
Table 9. Interview Responses on What Behaviors Do You Consider to be
Uncivil in Your Workplace...... 80
Table 10. Comparison of Gender Beliefs of Workplace Incivility in Previous
Years ...... 85
Table 11. Comparison of Generation Beliefs of Workplace Incivility in
Previous Years ...... 86
Table 12. Interview Responses on Beliefs That Incivility is a Problem in Their
Workplace ...... 88
Table 13. Gender Indications of How Incivility in the Workplace Relates to
Employee Job Satisfaction ...... 93
Table 14. Generation Indications of How Incivility in the Workplace Relates
to Employee Job Satisfaction ...... 94
x
Table 15. Interview Responses of Job Change Due to Incivility ...... 95
Table 16. Gender Indications of Incivility Related to Productivity of Employees and Their
Workplace ...... 100
Table 17. Generation Indications of Incivility Related to Productivity of
Employees and Their Workplace ...... 102
Table 18. Gender Indications of Training to Learn How to Deal with Workplace
Incivility ...... 104
Table 19. Generation Indications of Training to Learn How to Deal with
Workplace Incivility ...... 106
Table 20. Gender Indications of Preparedness in Dealing with Workplace
Incivility ...... 107
Table 21. Generation Indications of Preparedness in Dealing with Workplace
Incivility ...... 109
Table 22. Interview Responses of Addressing Rude Behavior and Incivility in
The Workplace ...... 109
Table 23. Gender Indications of Their Employment Comprehensive Policy
Addressing Workplace Incivility ...... 116
Table 24. Generation Indications of Their Employment Comprehensive Policy
Addressing Workplace Incivility ...... 117
Table 25. Gender Indications of Their Employment Comprehensive Workplace
Incivility Policy Effectiveness ...... 119
Table 26. Generation Indications of Their Employment Comprehensive Workplace
Incivility Policy Effectiveness ...... 121
xi
Table 27. Interview Responses of Management Would Support Reporting
An Incident of Incivility ...... 122
Table 28. Ranking of Employee Behaviors by Gender and Generation ...... 140
Table 29. Gender Indications of Employee Behaviors that Institute Incivility
in the Workplace ...... 144
Table 30. Generation Indications of Employee Behaviors that Institute Incivility
in the Workplace ...... 146
Table 31. Graduate Student Workplace Incivility Other Behaviors ...... 152
Table 32. Gender Indications of Contributing To Workplace Incivility ...... 156
Table 33. Generation Indications of Contributing To Workplace Incivility ...... 157
Table 34. Interview Responses of Being Approached By A Co-Worker Or
Management Regarding A Rude Behavior or Uncivil Act ...... 159
Table 35. Graduate Student Examples of How Technology Contributes
Towards Incivility in the Workplace ...... 166
Table 36. Interview Responses If Technology Has Negatively Impacted
Civility in Your Workplace...... 172
Table 37. Interview Responses of Communicating Through Technology
Negatively Impacting Civility in the Workplace ...... 182
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Working Graduate Student Degree Major Population ...... 51
Figure 2. Working Graduate Student Gender Population ...... 51
Figure 3. Working Graduate Student Race or Ethnic Identification Population ...... 52
Figure 4. Working Graduate Student Generation Population ...... 53
Figure 5. Working Graduate Student Job Occupation Population ...... 55
Figure 6. Working Graduate Student Employment Number Years of Service ...... 56
Figure 7. Working Graduate Student Job Title Classification of Current Job
Occupation ...... 57
Figure 8. Working Graduate Student Highest Level of Education Completed ...... 58
xiii
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 1
Chapter One: Introduction
Background of the Study
No other period in our nation‘s past has represented such diversity in today‘s multiple generational workforces (Gordon & Steele, 2000). Members of the first four generations comprising today‘s working population are known as the Traditionalists. The
Traditionalists encompass a total of 75 million people who were born during the years
1900-1945, a timeframe that begins in the 19th century and stretches to the end of the
Second World War (Lancaster & Stillman, 2003). The second, and largest of the four generations, with a population of 80 million, is known as the Baby Boomers, who were born between 1946 and 1964 (Lancaster & Stillman, 2003). The third generation, known as Generation X, includes those born from1965-1980. Generation X represents the smallest demographic, with only 46 million individuals (Lancaster & Stillman, 2003).
Lastly, Generation Y, also referred as the Millennials, includes individuals born from
1981-1999, and totals 76 million people (Lancaster & Stillman, 2003). Today‘s working class, for the first time in America‘s history, includes multiple generations laboring side- by-side (Martin, 2004) with each generation representing and bringing forth a rich diversity of similarities and differences that can result in collaboration or intergenerational conflict (Martin, 2004).
For those individuals who sought work at the start of the 19th century they witnessed deplorable wages for work which offered a minimal shield from undeserved management practices (Karl & Sutton, 1998). Decades ago the worker valued any opportunity to earn an employment wage in order to make a living, yet over time there has been a paradigm shift in the way of thinking and attitudes that has shown that today‘s
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 2 employees have increased their job selectivity, and will not accept any job just to become employed (Wilson, 1978). The concept of hard work may appear to be a forgotten value by today‘s worker. ―There is no shame in hard work. All work is honorable and makes a contribution to society whether that work is accomplished as a janitor or an astronaut‖
(Cosby & Poussaint, 2007, p. 225). Not so long ago the workplace provided a sense of security for employees to pursue a long-standing career (Gonthier, 2002). Today, employees and employers no longer collectively define job loyalty as a worker who commits his or her career path to performing one job occupation for consecutive decades at one single company (Profile of a Changing Workforce, 2001).
Employees are changing jobs more frequently today and companies are in a constant state of change, which has altered and reshaped how both employees and employers define job loyalty (Gonthier, 2002). There is less concern for equality, faithfulness, or being kind (Gonthier, 2002). ―Based on age, employees can have very differing perceptions of their relationships with their employers, as well as their commitment, loyalty, and views about tenure in employment‖ (Lieber, 2010, p. 88).
When employees feel dispensable and no longer valued by their employer, they will pursue a change of employment (Gonthier, 2002). During the 1980s, businesses began to minimize the work force numbers, and there was little regard for tenured employees and their future state, both of which became part of the cause of incivility (Gonthier, 2002).
Numerous studies and research show over the past decade that incivility is a growing problem within today‘s workplace (Porath & Erez, 2007). According to
Fritscher-Porter (2003), ―Incivility, rudeness, and bad manners at work hinder productive communication and destroy workplace relationships‖ (p. 22). There are increased
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 3 findings and reports of vulgarity; provocative dress attire, surfing restricted websites, and general rude conduct in the work setting (Nye, Bosco, & Harvey, 2009). The researcher‘s experience in the work environment shows that it is often unclear and difficult to understand the characteristics of why employees act in an uncivil manner in the workplace.
Peter Post, the Great-Grandson of Emily Post, American literary icon of proper etiquette and manners, noted when an employee acts in an uncivil manner in the workplace other employees may be quick to judge or blame the employee‘s lack of manners as a result of his or her upbringing or lack of education (Post, 2010). Post (2010) advised that employees should not use a quick to blame approach as a remedy to correcting civility. Many employers and employees pay no attention to incivility for the reason that, ―we all experience the same life stages, we are bound to see them the same way‖ (Lancaster & Stillman, 2003). Each employee is non-exempt as a contributor to incivility in the workplace, and every employee may become an active participant in resolving the problem as well (Post, 2010). It is the opinion of the researcher that uncivil behavior in the workplace includes a wide range of offensive behaviors spanning across a number of diverse job occupations. Sadly, hostile behavior and an overall lack of respect are becoming increasingly visible in the workplace, thus causing problems for management in all lines of work (Ramsey, 2008).
Dr. Mitchell Kusy and Dr. Elizabeth Holloway, researchers of toxic workplace effects, noted that certain employee behaviors often regarded as toxic or uncivil, can plague the workplace environment, leaving an imprint that outlasts the toxic employee‘s stay in the workplace, regardless of whether the employee is terminated or chooses to
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 4 leave willingly (Kusy & Holloway, 2009). ―Employees who become targets of bad behavior become angry, frustrated, and even vengeful. Job satisfaction falls, and performance plummets. Some employees leave. But those who stay may take a bigger toll on the organization‖ (Pearson & Porath, 2009, p. 24).
The purpose of this study was to address the growing problem of incivility in the workplace from the perspectives of working graduate students using a twofold approach to define what acceptable and unacceptable behavior in the workplace is, and to address the immediate need for management and employees to take personal ownership and address when uncivil behavior occurs. This mixed methods study used the data from paper surveys and interview transcripts from graduate students enrolled in various accelerated degree programs from a private four-year Midwest university.
Statement of Problem
The perception that civility remains very identifiable within the structures of today‘s business working environment is becoming less apparent (Andersson & Pearson,
1999). Employers and their employees used to value establishing and building relationships with their customers by demonstrating good manners, greeting a person with a genuine smile, referencing an individual by his or her name, making eye contact, and offering a welcoming handshake (Reddick, 2007a). Unfortunately, introductions and greetings from customer service employees, in today‘s business environment, seldom include a good use of grammar and lack common courtesies (Reddick, 2007a).
Incivility in the workplace seems to be spreading as the complexities of competition, technology, and globalization intermingle. Workplace incivility, as a negative behavior with moral implications and as a potential precursor to increasingly
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 5 aggressive acts, deserves more scholarly attention. ―The ways in which incivility affects organizational productivity and employee well-being have yet to be tested‖ (Andersson &
Pearson, 1999, p. 468). ―Organizations have much to gain by understanding the factors that disrupt mutual respect and prompt aggression‖ (Anderson & Pearson, 1999, p. 468).
This study addressed the timeliness of workplace incivility as a growing problem within today‘s work environment, the damaging effects upon employees, contamination of the work culture, and the downward spiral of productivity losses, which may label an industry as unprofessional. Uncivil behavior is often ambiguous in definition which creates difficulty for employers to identify, manage, and prevent each occurrence
(Cortina, 2008). What one person may consider as their personal interpretation or definition of uncivil behavior may show no offense or scrutiny to another person.
Fritscher-Porter (2003) provided the example of taking the last cup of coffee and the direct failure to make another pot as a type of rudeness seen in today‘s workplace.
Employees interpret and view this type of behavior as either acceptable or disrespectful in the workplace environment (Fritscher-Porter, 2003). Taking an active voice to address civil behavior is necessary in order to prevent polluting the culture of the workplace and erosion of productivity (Ramsey, 2008).
Professional Significance of the Problem
―Incivility and workplace bullying are visibly more common today than in decades passed‖ (Wachs, 2009, p.88; Farkas & Johnson, 2002). Growing visibility of repeat instances of uncivil behavior in the workplace produces extreme negative results for all employees, and the social culture of the workplace (Barling, Dekker, Loughlin,
Kelloway, Fullagar, & Johnson, 1996; Barling, Rogers, & Kelloway, 2001). ―More
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 6 research on the nature, causes, and consequences of this workplace phenomenon will bring us closer to being able to combat it effectively. Perhaps this ongoing work will ultimately add a crack to the proverbial glass ceiling‖ (Cortina, 2008, p.71). Many businesses establish goals and objectives with the belief that in order to obtain success all employees need to embrace teamwork and work collaboratively as one (Cavaiola &
Lavender, 2000). More importantly, employees should be aware of the need, ―to act respectfully towards each other and to recognize the obligations which they incur to one another‖ (Billante & Saunders, 2002, p. 34). However, employees who do not exhibit common courtesies in the workplace unequivocally can unravel business goals and forward momentum of achieving those goals (Osterfelt, 2004). Commitment to modeling the right behavior all the time is the turning point needed for success in the workplace
(Osterfelt, 2004).
Overview of Methodology
This study used a mixed methods design to measure if graduate students viewed incivility as a growing problem in the workplace. Occurrences of incivility in society today seem to be a problem that is gaining momentum with increases of examples and reports of rudeness from coworkers (Pearson & Porath, 2009).
About a quarter of customers we surveyed believe disrespectful behavior from
service providers is common today. The same percentage also sees it as more
common today than it was even as recently as five years ago. About half tell us
that it‘s not unusual at all to see employees treat their coworkers badly. (Pearson
& Porath, 2009, p. 23)
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 7
This study explored and rated the perceptions of working adult graduate students enrolled in various accelerated graduate degree programs. Additionally, survey data and interview transcriptions provided examples of workplace incivility, and participants rated the frequency of several offensive rude behaviors. This mixed-methods study provided vigor by taking both quantitative and qualitative perspectives to improve and support the research and analysis of data (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). An exploratory design was used to gather quantitative data as the first tier approach of this study, ―to identify unique variance among individual differences‖ (Hoffman & Nadelson, 2010 p. 250) through the use of gathering demographics inclusive of working adult graduate students‘ degree, major, gender, race, job occupation, and number of employment years of service.
Qualitative data were collected through structured interviews of working adult graduate students as the second tier of this study, in order to gain ―additional information, elaboration, and clarification‖ (Hoffman & Nadelson, 2010, p. 252) to identify the occurrence of workplace incivility throughout job occupations that have not been studied or referenced in the literature. Additionally qualitative data from this study provided a perspective to gather additional insight as to how incivility may affect employee morale, an employee‘s level of frustration, professionalism, and loss of job productivity.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used as the baseline of the study:
1. How do working graduate students define civil and uncivil behavior in the workplace?
2. To what extent do working graduate students perceive incivility as a growing problem in the workplace?
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 8
3. In what ways do working graduate students relate incivility in their workplace to job satisfaction?
4. In what ways do working graduate students perceive incivility as related to their productivity in their workplace?
5. How do working graduate students perceive their effectiveness in prevention and response to workplace incivility?
6. How do working graduate students perceive their employers‘ effectiveness in prevention and response to workplace incivility?
7. What types of behavior (verbal/non-verbal) do working graduate students perceive as contributing to a toxic workplace?
8. To what extent do working graduate students examine their own contributions to workplace incivility?
9. How do working graduate students perceive the use of technology as contributing to workplace incivility?
10. How (and if) do the answers to RQ 1-9 vary for working graduate students of different demographic groups (academic discipline, workplace environment, supervisory role, age, gender, ethnicity, etc.)?
Hypotheses
Hypothesis # 1: There is a relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view that workplace incivility is unchanged when compared to previous years.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 9
Hypothesis # 2: There is a relationship between the generation of the research participant and the view that workplace incivility is unchanged when compared to previous years.
Hypothesis # 3: There is a relationship between the gender of the research participant and the perception of the level to which incivility in the workplace affects job satisfaction.
Hypothesis # 4: There is a relationship between the generation of the research participant and the perception of the level to which incivility in the workplace affects job satisfaction.
Hypothesis # 5: There is a relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view of the level to which incivility affects productivity of employees in the workplace.
Hypothesis # 6: There is a relationship between the generation of the research participant and the view of the level to which incivility affects productivity of employees in the workplace.
Hypothesis # 7: There is a relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view of the training to learn how to deal with incivility in the workplace.
Hypothesis # 8: There is a relationship between the generations of the research participant and the view of the training to learn how to deal with incivility in the workplace.
Hypothesis # 9: There is a relationship between the gender of the research participant and the perception of the preparedness to deal with incivility in the workplace.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 10
Hypothesis # 10: There is a relationship between the generations of the research participant and the perception of the preparedness to deal with incivility in the workplace.
Hypothesis # 11: There is a relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view of the level to which there is a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace.
Hypothesis # 12: There is a relationship between the generations of the research participant and the view of the level to which there is a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace.
Hypothesis # 13: There is a relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view of the level of effectiveness of a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace.
Hypothesis # 14: There is a relationship between the generations of the research participant and the view of the level of effectiveness of a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace.
Hypothesis # 15: There is a relationship between the gender of the research participant and belief that there is incivility in the workplace.
Hypothesis # 16: There is a relationship between the generation of the research participant and belief that there is incivility in the workplace.
Definition of Terms
Baby Boomers-―is the name given to the generation of Americans who were born in a
‗baby boom‘ following World War II. The Boomers were born between 1944 and 1964‖
(Heathfield, 2012, para. 1).
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 11
Civility-“treating one another in ways that observe the formal conditions of civility.
Respect for these formal conditions is communicative. The practice of civility generates a sense of inclusivity and moral equality, both in ourselves and for others. Failure to respect these rules by behaviors such as rudeness, condescension, mockery and other forms of incivility serves to locate others outside a common moral community‖ (Boyd,
2006, p. 865).
Generation X-―are people born between 1965 and 1980. Gen-Xers are independent, enjoy informality, are entrepreneurial, and seek emotional maturity‖ (Heathfield, 2012, para.1).
Generation Y- ―are born between 1981 and 1999. Unlike the Gen-Xers and the Boomers, they have developed work characteristics and tendencies from doting parents, structured lives, and contact with diverse people‖ (Heathfield, 2012, para.1).
Incivility—low intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect (Andersson & Pearson, 1999).
Productivity—“the quality or state of being productive‖ (Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary, 2009, para. 1).
Professionalism-―can be defined in many ways and consists of many constructs including: communication; loyalty; membership and participation in professional organizations; appropriate dress and mannerisms; respect; behavior towards peers, patients, and those in authority; and work habits such as time management and stress management‖ (Gleeson, 2007, p. 23).
Rude Behavior-“Rudeness can be defined as insensitive or disrespectful behavior enacted by a person that displays a lack of regard for others. Rude behaviors are sometimes referred to as uncivil behaviors‖ ( Porath & Eraz, 2007, p.1181).
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 12
Uncivil Behavior-“low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of work place norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others‖
(Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 457).
Traditionalists-are born between 1900 and 1945. ―This is a generation that learned at an early age that by putting aside the needs and wants of the individual and working together toward common goals, they could accomplish amazing things‖ (Lancaster & Stillman,
2003, p. 18-19).
Workplace-“a place (as an office setting, shop, or factory) where work is done‖
(Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2009, para. 1).
Limitations
The target population of participants for this study was developed from working adult graduate students enrolled at a private four-year Midwest university. Participation in this study was limited to a selected group of graduate degree programs. Undergraduate students enrolled in the same graduate level courses as well as the graduate instructors did not participate in the survey or interview portion for this study. The time allotted for surveying and interviewing participants was limited to five months. This study recognized all participants to have current employment through an employer that was established in a workplace brick and mortar setting. The findings and results of this study may not apply to employees that worked from home or in a virtual setting. The sample size of participants for this study included employees representing a diverse variety of job occupations, job titles, years of employment service completed, and geographical
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 13 locations. All participants of this study did not represent or adhere to a common standard industry of employment policies and procedures.
Face-to-face interviews conducted in this study may or may not have produced honest responses verses mailed or online surveys. Some participants in this study may have not witnessed or encountered incivility in the workplace as a result of less completed years of employment service than other participants, or simply do not have the first- hand knowledge to identify the various types of employee behavior that are often portrayed as uncivil by other seasoned employees. Although the primary investigator is not a direct supervisor to any of the participants in this study, responses from participants in this study may be skewed or non-factual.
Conclusion
Findings of workplace incivility are common and damaging to a business and its employees (Milam, Spitzmueller, & Penney, 2009). Uncivil behavior is infectious in the work environment, and if it is not identified and controlled reoccurrences are to be expected (Wachs, 2009). In the researcher‘s experience, the expectations for businesses and industries motivated by the media continue to rise to increasing levels, the expectations for employees has changed and what was once sufficient as a definition of a decent employee is no longer the norm. Now, employees are being challenged to transform from being just decent, into an overall balanced employee (Lancaster &
Stillman, 2003).
This study provided additional insight into the pervasive issue of workplace incivility from the viewpoints of graduate students who represented a diverse population of employees, with short term and long term career paths, and ranges of employment
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 14 service years. Previous studies of graduate students have focused on classroom incivility
(McKinne, 2008) and comparisons of faculty and student perceptions of incivility.
Examination of workplace incivility as a rising problem has been previously addressed in the literature by Montgomery, Kane, and Vance (2004).The research from this study will add to the body of knowledge by establishing if there are common perceptions of working graduate students across various academic disciplines, and current occupations, or age and gender. ―The central argument is that incivility, in some cases, is not ‗general‘ at all but instead represents contemporary manifestations of gender and racial bias in the workplace‖ (Cortina, 2008, p. 55). Age bias may also be another factor. One focus of this study was on technology in the workplace, and its relationship to perceptions of incivility, since research in this area is lacking.
The literature review in Chapter 2 provides a background and additional details of the problem of incivility in the workplace today, including plausible contributing factors and external root causes of the current state of the modern work environment. Factors include but are not limited to: social behavior, competition, and technological influences.
The literature review also includes plausible contributing factors and root causes external to the professional environment including social behavior, competition, and technology influences. The literature review summarizes the importance of solution management in the workplace in order to extinguish incivility and restore civility (Elder, Seaton, &
Swinney, 2004). Chapter 3 provides the methodology and research design for the study.
Chapter 4 organizes the findings and analysis of data. Chapter 5 will provide a summary of the study with closing suggestions for further examinations and research.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 15
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Introduction
The researcher conducted a widespread search of literary publications related to incivility in the workplace resulting in a small quantity of terminal job occupations content pertaining to civil and uncivil behavior in actual workplace settings. This literature review intends to provide a framing of known published research studies that have been conducted to identify and define statistical measures of workplace incivilities, examples of uncivil behavior, and identifiable contributing factors. Throughout this review, additional information stressed the importance of recognizing and addressing when incivilities occur, and the damaging effects which if untreated can create a downward spiral of numerous organizational problems. This review of the current literature informed the researcher on the various complexities and tolerance levels that define uncivil behaviors as well as the various types of incivilities in the workplace that range from mildly to severely offensive. Additionally, this review examined the critical need for employers to acknowledge and identify warning predictors of incivility as well as the proactive need to create preventative remedies for correcting uncivil behavior in order to prevent loss of productivity, and curtail the employee organizational work culture from toxicity.
Civil Theoretical Framework
―John Locke (1964) stated civility as the ‘general good will and regard for all people, which makes one care not to shrew in his carriage any contempt, disrespect, or neglect for them‖ (Elder et al., 2004, p. 82; Locke, 1964).―This country‘s first president,
George Washington, scribed 110 Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour in Company
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 16 and Conversation‖ (Brookhiser, 2009, p. 156). Unfortunately, today civility appears to have lost its luster and appeal to incivility whose presence is more noticeable than it should be (Elder et al., 2004). ―Workplace civility is a behavior that helps to preserve the norms for mutual respect in the workplace; it compromises behaviors that are fundamental to positively connecting with another, building relationships and empathizing‖ (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000, p.125).
Since the turbulent 1960s and the onset of anti-establishment attitudes, we have
been living in a gradual state of change distinguished by general casualization of
America—a cultural downtrend toward extreme informality. As a society, we
value freedom and casual informality more today than when manners were first
codified, but just because we live more casually doesn‘t mean we have to live less
agreeably, less civilly. (Reddick, 2007a, para. 4)
―According to the 2002 Aggravating Circumstances: A Status Report on Rudeness in America conducted by Public Agenda, 47% of those surveyed believe that ‗life is so hectic and people are so busy that they forget to be nice‖ (Shortman, 2002, p. 18).
Additional participant results from Public Agenda revealed ―most Americans (67 %) believe that people who hail from small towns are more polite than the average person‖
(Shortman, 2002, p.18). Lastly, percentage findings from Public Agenda noted participants perceive, ―people who are deeply religious-54%, people from the South-
39%, and people who are well educated-28% are more polite and respectful than the average person‖ (Shortman, 2002, p. 18).
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 17
Incivility
―The business world was thought by many to be one of the last bastions of civility‖ (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 453).The same authors go on to write ―The relationship between coworkers was, for decades, characterized by formality yet friendliness, distance yet politeness‖ (p. 453). ―Incivility is perhaps one of the most pervasive forms of antisocial behavior in the workplace‖ (Cortina, 2008, p. 56). ―These rude and discourteous actions can be verbal (making snide or derogatory comment toward another) or nonverbal (snatching an item out of someone's hand or pushing in front of another person‖ (Porath, Macinnis, & Folkes, 2010, p. 293).
Other behaviors not to be confused with incivility in the workplace include sexual harassment and bullying (Sidle, 2009). Andersson and Pearson (1999) defined workplace incivility as, ―low-intensely deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target‖
(p. 452). Incivility is defined as ―bad behavior characterized by a lack of consideration towards others‖ (Gonthier, 2002, p.24). Additional references of incivility include nonverbal behaviors such as, “employees’ withholding information from one another, giving others the ‘silent treatment,’ or belittling them” (Porath, Overbeck, & Pearson,
2008, p. 1947). ―Workplace incivility can entail physical, verbal and nonverbal behavior patterns in interaction with coworkers, as well as violation of such norms as collaboration and good communication that lead to a safe, pleasant, and productive environment for all‖ (Gonthier, 2002, p. 24-25). “What is considered to be uncivil in one organization may not be universally considered uncivil, yet we can still hold a common understanding of workplace incivility as behavior that disrupts mutual respect in the workplace‖
(Anderson & Pearson, 1999, p.455).
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 18
Most working adults at some point in their working experience have or will be exposed to or become victim to incivility since the amount of time spent working makes up approximately one-third of a person‘s life (Veronikis, 2009). Particular focus on workplace violence may be the cause of an inadvertent shift to focus less attention on the importance of civility (Muir, 2000). Research shows that incivility is not an aftermath of a tragic event within the workplace. Andersson and Pearson (1999) note the importance of awareness for recognizing and dismissing incivility as harmless behaviors often indicating warning signs for behaviors that may escalade into physical aggression.
According to an HR Briefing (1999) instigations of conducting incivility identified both males and females as contributors to the cause of the behavior, yet males were twice as likely to be uncivil to subordinates, and females were equally uncivil towards superiors and subordinates.
The visibility of frequent acts of incivility and aggressive rude behavior has increased in the workplace. ―Researcher Trudel of Indiana Wesleyan University told,
USA Today 75-80% of people have experienced workplace incivility‖ (Mattice, 2012, p.
28). Findings from Mattice (2012) in The Civility in America 2011 poll revealed, ―86% of Americans are mistreated at work‖ (p. 28). Additional findings from The Civility in
America 2011 poll showed, ―38% believe the workplace is becoming more disrespectful, and 59% admit to being uncivil to co-workers‖ (Mattice, 2012, p. 28).
In a survey conducted by U.S. News and World Report 89 % of those interviewed responded favorably that incivility is a grave problem (Johnson & Indvik, 2001).
Additionally of those interviewed 79% had the same opinion that incivility and rudeness has increased over the past 10 years and surprisingly, 99 % of the participants responded
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 19 favorably of their own behavior as being quite civil (Johnson & Indvik, 2001).The reward of going to work and enjoying the type of environment associated with the job and fellow co-workers has changed. ―Relationships between employees and companies used to be based on loyalty‖ (Pearson & Porath, 2009, p.44). ―Under the old exchange of loyalty for job security, some people had to tolerate disrespect occasionally‖ (Pearson & Porath,
2009, p. 44). Now ―workers have less and less loyalty to companies, which anyway treat them as disposable parts. So there is no need to get along with colleagues and bosses who will play no role in one's long-term future‖ (Broughton, 2009, p. 50).The researcher is of the belief that employees may still have passion about the work task, yet working in a setting that is less than desirable caused by rude and uncivil behaviors of one‘s co- workers is a growing problem. Workplace incivility often gains momentum causing further escalation of incivility producing an unconstructive organizational culture
(Mattice, 2012).
Stress Factors Cause for Incivility
In recent years, greater attention in finding ways to maintain a steady scale of life and work has remained a challenge (Rennar, 2007). According to Gonthier (2002),‖sleep deprivation is a stressor that causes workplace incivility‖ (p.16). ―In this post-recession time, organizations are still making changes to work teams, closing down worksites, or liquidating some of the company assets in order to stay afloat which causes a great deal of uncertainty making people aggressive‖ (Mattice, 2012, p. 29). Signs of visible, stressed out employees often result with rudeness and incivility as the norm (Johnson &
Indvik, 2001). Research indicated these increased levels of pressure and stress may have
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 20 caused employees to lash out in forms of angry desk rage and vent mild incivilities towards other employees thus resulting in loss of productivity (Buhler, 2007).
The effects of uncivil behavior have included a loss in productivity, bad consumer assistance, the rapid growth and downsizing of organizations and a fear of job reductions which can lead to stress which employees have difficulty managing (Johnson & Indvik,
2001). Employees are working longer hours due to an increase in workloads and are asked to increase performance within shorter turn-around time frames. Pearson and
Porath (2009) note, ―the stressful nature of life today also plays a huge role that people in general are so busy and pressed for time they forget to be nice‖ (p. 43). Demands such as these break down the barriers of trust among employees and their employer and contribute to potential growth spikes of incivility (Buhler, 2007).
Workplace Organizational Culture and Climate
First impressions of a workplace setting that appears to be clean, organized, and well maintained may appear to the visual eye as void of incivility, yet incivility often lies dormant and may quickly infect and spread, turning an organizational culture from positive to negative. Today‘s workplace is not structured in a silo, ―rudeness in our workplace results from causes and uncivil attitudes and behavior in our larger culture‖
(Pearson &Porath, 2009, p. 47). ―Incivility is being fueled by the violent metaphors in our language‖ (Kerfoot, 2008, p.149; Carter, 1999). ―Another explanation of work environments becoming toxic is the failure of leadership permitting uncivil behavior to exist in the workplace‖ (Kerfoot, 2008, p. 150; Frost, 2007).
Andersson and Pearson (1999) identify trends of incivility in the workplace due to the increased diversity of employees representing various cultural backgrounds.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 21
Employee diversity is more visible in today‘s workplace than in prior years with numerous employees of various cultural backgrounds collaborating and working side by side on a daily basis (Muir, 2000). ―Layers of supervision have flattened; workers and their managers may be on such familiar terms that hierarchical relationships have lost much of the respect they have traditionally demanded‖ (Muir, 2000, p. 143).
―In slow economic times with downsizing and budget cuts, many temporary workers are hired both in the professional realm and in administrative areas‖ (Gonthier,
2002, p. 18). There are increasing numbers of contract or contingent employees in the workforce today (Pearson &Porath, 2009). ―These workers are not seen as colleagues and are often treated with disdain by permanent employees [and] ―very few template sent out into the workforce with civility training of any type‖ (Gonthier, 2002, p. 18).
Additionally employees may shy away from the comrade of existing co-workers or employees hired for temporary periods of time (Muir, 2000).
Cubicle Work Settings / Desk Rage
There is a current assumption in the workforce that by allowing employees to work in cubicles, that this type of work environment will promote brainstorming, team building, and serve as a cost savings to the employer (Jones, 2001). According to a study by Steelcase Inc., an office furnishings manufacturer, 7% of employees stated having a preference of working in a cubicle rather than any other office setting (Poe, 2000). While farms of cubicles may provide employees the opportunity for working closely together, they offer little to no privacy (Elder et al., 2004, p. 88; Sargent, 2002). ―It‘s a fact:
Cubicle life is noisier than office life‖ (Poe, 2000). Cubicle settings often lack privacy.
Employees that work in cubicles with an open ceiling structure may shout over the wall
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 22 to a nearby or distant coworker which causes work stoppage and disturbances for other employees as well as an effect commonly referred to as ―prairie dogging‖ where employees stand up in their cubes to locate where the commotion is coming from
(Gonthier, 2002). This type of behavior can lead to desk rage that includes, screaming, verbal insults, roughness of office equipment, and physical altercations with other employees (Stack, 2003). ―Extreme desk rage can be a precursor to violence‖ (Stack,
2003, p. 111). According to a 2000 survey of 1,305 employees conducted by Integra
Reality Resources ―42% of the participants have witnessed yelling or other verbal abuse;
29% yelled at a co-worker themselves; 23% cried over work-related issues; 10% have seen someone purposely damage machines or furniture; and 2% struck a co-worker‖
(Fox, 2001, p. 9).
Good Etiquette and Manners
While it is not mandatory to like everyone we come in contact with in the workplace, it is a necessity to make every effort to treat all individuals with full respect
(McGrath, 2006). ―For a company to truly embrace civility requires the support and participation of every single division and all the employees; senior executives, to administrative assistants, vice presidents to line personnel, managers to maintenance staff‖ (Gonthier, 2002, p. 180). Studies related to good etiquette and manners revealed the use of please and thank you would not entirely remove incivility in the workplace; but by increasing a conscious awareness of treating everyone in the same manner it can have a greater impact of instilling a civil workplace environment (McGrath, 2006).
All of us have observed relationships marked by poor taste, bad manners, and a
lack of civility. They are unproductive, they diminish both parties, and they often
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 23
implode personally (or explode publicly) with predictable just as one cannot have
two sets of ethics—one for business and one for personal life—one cannot have
two sets of manners. (Hesselbein, 1997, p. 6)
―Bad manners have infected the workplace as well noting nearly four in 10 people who work outside the home say they have colleagues who are rude or disrespectful‖
(Shortman, 2002, p. 18).
Incivility in Health Care and Service
Today‘s clinical office setting greatly differs from the clinical setting from multiple decades ago (Gleeson, 2007). Andersson and Pearson (1999) defined workplace incivility as a problem that occurs in business organizations, yet Hutton and Gates
(2008); Hutton (2006) noted, ―workplace incivility as a growing problem prevalent in the health care setting‖ (p. 168). The health care setting first began to witness signs of incivility in hospitals around 1976 with the publication of Hutton and Gates (2008);
Krebs (1976) article regarding non-respect. Additional examination of incivility in nursing instruction was necessary (Clark & Springer, 2007) and the exact numbers regarding occurrence of physician rudeness were difficult to obtain (MacLeod, 2001). A vast number of nurses have been the target of slander or defamation from another employee and most often by physicians (Carroll-Johnson, 2008). A lesser yet significant number of nurses have been the target of abuse involving being in the position of having an instrument or chart thrown forcefully that is more physical in nature—the throwing of a piece of equipment instrument oar chart flung strongly in their general direction
(Carroll-Johnson, 2008). According to Pearson and Porath (2009), ―over one third of the
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 24 patients surveyed were upset about the way their health care providers treat[ed] them‖ (p.
25).
Awareness of rude behavior in the medical profession is a concentrated concern that extends to taking a closer look at medical instructors and the example they have represented for future physicians (MacLeod, 2001). Workplace incivility can manifest into violence if uncontrolled in the workplace setting and poise significant health risks for employees (Hutton & Gates, 2008). Regardless of the levels of rudeness in today‘s society, most will not put up with uncivil service (Gonthier, 2002). Many have encountered brushes of incivility within retail settings and government offices (Pearson
& Porath, 2009).
Legal Professions and Law Enforcement Civility Standards
The legal profession recognizes and upholds a form of professionalism and code of civility for 45 states of the United States of America (American Bar Association, 2004;
Elder et al., 2004). Professional conduct and civility within the legal profession is a clear expectation set forth by rules developed by federal district courts (Elder et al., 2004).
Guidelines of professional courtesy identified by the Vermont Bar Association strongly suggested that ―lawyers should treat each other, their clients, opposing parties, the courts, and members of the public with courtesy and civility and conduct themselves in a professional manner at all times‖ (Vermont Bar Association Membership, 1989, para. 5).
“Incivility is not a problem exclusive to the legal profession, yet, uncivil behavior by fellow attorneys is an unfortunate cost of practicing law in the litigation field as much as anywhere‖ (Keating, 2008, para. 1). Uncivil behavior can occur within any job
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 25 occupation, yet for attorneys who use assertiveness and hostility in and out of their job there is cause for trepidation (Lunau, 2011).
An example of incivility in law enforcement occurred approximately 10 years after the New York Police Department implemented the aphorism, ―‗Courtesy,
Professionalism, and Respect‘. Holding precinct commanders accountable for civilian complaints, allegations of discourtesy by the police are on the rise: up 47 percent in five years, to 3,807 in 2006‖ (Lueck, 2007, para. 6). Complaints of rude behavior from officers ranged from being unwilling to disclose their shield identification number when asked, to officers informing public transportation riders to ―learn English, or go home‖
(Lueck, 2007, para. 10). ―Statistics for the 2009-2010 Independent Police Complaints
Commission for England and Wales reported nearly half of all allegations pertained to rudeness, incivility and neglect of duty‖ (Gilbertson, 2011, para. 1). ―There is no doubt that standards of behavior and civility, across all of Great Britain, have changed for the worse over the past quarter century. Courtesy and good behavior have been abandoned by many in our modern, 'me' society‖ (Gilbertson, 2011, para.11).
Incivility of Office Etiquette
―Although particular norms differ across organizations, industries, and cultures, in every workplace there exists norms of respect for fellow coworkers, that is, a shared moral understanding among the members of the organization that allows organizational members to cooperate‖ ( Pearson et al., 2000, p. 126). ―The office doesn‘t exist in a vacuum; it‘s both a product and a cause of attitudes and behavior in the larger culture, and the disrespect and disregard toward others that saturate the larger culture also seep into the workplace‖ (Pearson & Porath, 2009, p. 41). ―Incivility, rudeness, and bad
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 26 manners at work hinder productivity communication and destroy workplace relationships‖ (Fritscher-Porter, 2003, p. 22) by affecting employees directly and indirectly. Employees who observe or over hear derogatory slurs and comments may feel angered and react in defense even if the instigator did not purposely direct comments to any specific individual or group (Rodriguez, Mosquera, Manstead, & Fisher, 2002).
―Behavior that is viewed as obnoxious is a wide spread problem in many workplaces‖ (Johnson & Indvik, 2001, p.458; Lee, 1999). ―Some types of incivility are clearly more obvious, such as yelling, screaming, fist pounding, and spitting while other behaviors are more subtle, such as undermining someone‘s work‖ (Gonthier, 2002, p.
28). Office setting examples discussed in this study included: transactions of e-mails that were demoralizing, tasteless, or vulgar; sabotaging colleagues; conducting child-like treatment; treating others coldly with silent treatments; engaging in gossip and spreading rumors; purposely excluding individuals from communication distributions and meetings; omitting greeting to others; interjecting out of turn when others are speaking; failure to turn off or silence cell phones in discussion forums; purposely leaving office equipment troubleshooting for another individual to repair; not cleaning up after one‘s self; leaving messes and spills in common areas; eavesdropping; ignoring requests; using condescending tones when speaking to others (Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout,
2001; Johnson & Indvik, 2001; Pearson et al., 2000; Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner,
2001). Performing personal hygiene behaviors in the workplace may also appear as rude, notes columnist Ann Landers who advised a reader who was corrected by his supervisor for clipping his toenail at his desk, ―toenails should be clipped at home or in the
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 27 washroom, this intimate bit of personal grooming should not be performed in view of your colleagues, your gaffe was crude and indefensible‖ (Landers, 1994, para. 1-6).
During the review of recent publications related to incivility, the researcher found the following list of behaviors that should be avoided by employees (Goldberg, 2010, p.
168-169). See Table 1.
Table 1
A Civil Person’s Handy List: Behavior to Avoid in the Workplace
Office Politics Desk snooping Boisterous behavior in an open office Sexual harassment Stealing food from the office fridge Leaving your rotten food in the office fridge Trashing the break room with your mess Taking the last cup of coffee and leaving it empty Using the last of the copy paper and leaving it empty Eavesdropping on your workmate‘s conversations Ignoring e-mails and phone calls Being late, disrespecting other people‘s time Chewing out a coworker in a group setting Making fun of a coworker when they aren‘t there Lying Lying about lying Taking credit for someone else‘s work Shifting blame from your failed work Blatant ass-covering Secretive ass-covering Ass-kissing, both blatant and secretive Sneaking smokes in the office or bathroom Getting on the elevator reeking of smoke, perfume, or cologne Body odor is no picnic either
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 28
Note. Behaviors are not listed in order of frequency or rank.
Technology and e-Incivility
Research also suggested sightings of incivility may be due to an increased use and constant change of technology (Kerfoot, 2008). Technology acts as another façade for indications of inattention, indifference, and boorishness (Reddick, 2007b). Failing to remember to make good use of minding our manners appears to occur whenever we have a technology gadget in our hands (Mowry, 2008). In a time when accessibility is defined in a matter of seconds, there is a significant decrease in putting courtesy first (Mowry,
2008).
Enforcement to separate from technology may be a difficult task. Jodi R. Smith president and founder of Mannersmith who advises CEOs on etiquette, notes a major problem with employees using technology today, is understanding the purpose of technology as a useful aid that performs for the individual and that the individual does not perform for technology (Mowry, 2008). Disconnecting from technology during a pre-flight checklist while the aircraft is on the tarmac is an example of unplugging from technology according to comedian and author, Whoopi Goldberg, who observed passengers disobey the request to power down all electronic devices by concealing cell phones and computers when flight crew members are performing visible checks
(Goldberg, 2010). During a standing ovation of the performance of Rhinestone Cowboy by singer Glenn Campbell, for the 2012 Grammy Awards, two female audience participants opted to sit and text/tweet rather than stand and applaud (Fashingbauer
Cooper, 2012). The behavior of the two females was considered to be rude and by many members of the audience as well as several onlookers (Fashingbauer Cooper, 2012).
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 29
Visible evidence of employees using technology in an uncivil manner in the workplace includes answering a telephone with a greeting of ‗yeah‘ or speaking loudly on the phone about non-work related subjects (Andersson, 2001).
Technology offers a type of protective shield for employees to communicate rudely while removing the face to face interaction (Johnson & Indvik, 2001). Many employees have encountered rude or ill-mannered behaviors from co-workers in close proximity or observed from a far and consent rude behavior is on the rise (Andersson,
2001). Today‘s work setting appears to be a deteriorating culture with growing exploits of vulgarity, offensive dress code, viewing pornographic material, and acting uncivil
(Nye, Bosco, & Harvey, 2009).
Cell Phones/Blackberries
The manufacturing and expansion of cellular telephones has greatly increased in recent times (Lipscomb, Totten, Cook, & Lesch, 2007). Using a Blackberry® while a speaker is talking is one example of discourtesy and a second example is to then share the information obtained from your Blackberry® with the person beside you (Osterfelt,
2004). For the aficionados of ―crackberries‖ Ellen Reddick, co-founder of Elite Business
School of Etiquette and Protocol suggests, ―Leave all technology devices turned off when you go to meetings. This makes meetings more productive and the presenter happy to know no preparation time was wasted and that what was said is of value to you‖
(Reddick, 2007b, p. 10). Choosing to answer a cell phone incoming call during a business meeting instead of ignoring the call is viewed as rude as well as trying to discretely view and navigate your handheld communication device while the meeting is ongoing
(Mowry, 2008).
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 30
The boundaries of when and where cell phones should or should not be used vary.
―Schools, universities, courtrooms, libraries, restaurants, and churches among others, have grappled with the proper use of cell phones‖ (Lipscomb et al., 2007, p. 48). Upon use of a women‘s public restroom, a lady entered the facility speaking on her cell phone and continued to conduct a conversation despite the background noise of flushing toilets
(Reddick, 2007b). Reddick remarked using a cell phone in a restroom is an example of rudeness and goes beyond the boundaries of improper behavior (Reddick, 2007b).
Author Christine Pearson, The Cost of Bad Behavior points out phone incivility even occurs in church (Pearson & Porath, 2009). Every Sunday individuals speak loudly on their cell phones during mass despite glares and motions from parishioners to stop or take the conversation outside of the church setting (Pearson & Porath, 2009). A restaurant waiter pointed out using a cell phone in his work environment is not advisable as good customer behavior (Dublanica, 2008). Conducting a conversation on a cell phone or texting in the presence of patrons that are eating is rude as well as using your cell phone while the waiter is talking about the menu selections or trying to understand the patron(s) requests (Dublanica, 2008).
―The 21st century has introduced technological and communication advances, including e-mail, which have been widely incorporated into everyday life and the business routine‖ (Oberle, 2011, p. 22). Proper structure is still needed when composing an e-mail. Communication over time converted into less friendly and digitalize, use of civilities are neglected in business correspondence (Muir, 2000). Composing an e-mail should follow the same guidelines as a traditional business letter to ensure the author
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 31 includes a salutation and a closing courtesy (Mowry, 2008). When starting to draft an e- mail it is advisable to use warm greetings and courteous endings as well as please and thank you to show class and create a good impression (Gonthier, 2002). A drawback to the use of e-mail is the lack of voice and tone and the inability to convey or read the body language of the sender or receiver of the communication (Gonthier, 2002). The use of frequent e-mail communication contributes to heightened tensions rather than lowering or maintaining a consistent tension level (Elder et al., 2004, p. 88;Kinsman, 2002).
Cautionary digression is advised to corresponding by using only capitalization for this may translate as screaming at the sender or receiver of the electronic message
(Mowry, 2008). Typing in all caps may translate as a violation of netiquette unless the author communicates in advance the use of capital letters does not imply shouting
(Gonthier, 2002). More emphasis is placed on the speed of the communication rather than the content of the message (Buhler, 2007). Failing to reply back to an e-mail from the author implies the message is not worthy or significant to take time from one‘s schedule to respond (Osterfelt, 2004). Groups of employees that choose to communicate the majority of their time by e-mail or by phone discussions instead of conversing in person are more inclined to have frequent disputes and distrust of employees (Sutton, 2007).
Electronic messaging has a tendency to provide a vulnerable platform for incivility to occur due to the ability to send communication quickly with not as much consideration verses drafting and mailing a pen and paper correspondence (Gonthier, 2002).
Influences of Incivility in Social Media
Various forms of media such as television, and movies, are viewed as the blame for the exposure of dangerous levels of rude behaviors as the inappropriate norm that is
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 32 modeled in the workplace causing incivility to flourish (Buhler, 2007). Associated Press-
Ipsos conducted a national poll with 69% agreement towards the viewing of bad behavior conducted by viewing celebrities and other public figures acting inappropriately (Carter,
2006). The rude behavior of rap artist Kayne West was visible during the presentation of best female video to singer Taylor Swift, at the 2009 Music Television Video (MTV)
Awards when West approached the stage and stole the microphone from Swift during her acceptance of the award stating that Beyoncé should have won (della Cava, 2009).
―Although Kayne apologized for being rude, he stated his behavior was a result of ‗I‘m just real‘‖ (della Cava, 2009, para. 8). Sportscaster and tennis analyst Mary Carillo, exposed the disrespectful behavior of tennis superstar Serena Williams, at the 2011 US
Open stating the tennis star acted like an ―ass [sic] class clown‖ (Wilson, 2011, para. 4).
Williams verbally bantered comments at the chair umpire directing personal comments of, ―you are a hater and unattractive on the inside,‖ and ―I truly despise you. If you ever see me walking down the hall, look the other way because you‘re out of control, you‘re out of control‖ (Wilson, 2009, para. 3-4). Rude behavior is equally visible in politics.
Rep. Joe Wilson, of South Carolina, interrupted the President of the United States during a joint session of Congress exclaiming, ―You lie!‖ (Thomas, 2009, para. 1).
Television provides another medium for broadcasting rude behavior.
Retired Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Joseph Wapner- the original star of
The People's Court - blasted the reigning queen of TV court, Judith Sheindlin, saying her
Judge Judy persona is rude and gives the public an inaccurate view of U.S. courtrooms
(Li, 2002). Cable network Showtime comedy series Shameless is portrayed as, ―It‘s crude, it‘s rude, it‘s vulgar- but it‘s modern‖ (Ostovitz, 2011). The Fox network drama
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 33 series House leading character Dr. Gregory House is scripted as a gifted physician who,
―pops vicodin, snarls at colleagues, while dispenses wisdom and rude sarcasm in equal doses‖ (Ostrow, 2004, para. 2). ―For nine seasons reality television show American Idol judge Simon Cowell vocalized rude and nasty comments to contestants‖ (Maerz, 2011, para. 1). Chef Gordon Ramsay is known for his blatant rude behavior and rants more so than his mastery of culinary (Broughton, 2009).
Participant findings from a research study by Pearson et al. (2000) provided possible explanations as to why incivility in the workplace is increasing. ―the line between appropriate and inappropriate interactions in society in general continues to blur, thanks to the media and entertainment industries, ineffective primary and secondary schooling and absentee parenting‖(p. 129). ―Films and television are crass wastelands, and much of our popular music is vulgar [and] the message disseminated is not only that all of this lewdness is acceptable, but that the values embodied are worth imitating‖
(Gonthier, 2002, p. 13-14). Pearson and Porath (2009) noted, ―you can watch incivility daily on shows like South Park, The Jerry Springer Show, and MTV‘s Jackass‖ (p. 43).
―Incivilities in society incite disregard and disrespect in the workplace, and workplace incivilities spill back over into society [and] it‘s a destructive exchange, and competition, selfishness, time compression, information access, and individual stress make it that much worse‖ (Pearson & Porath, 2009, p. 47).
Negative Effects of Incivility on Employees
Focus and attention towards workplace violence overshadows concern for civility
(Muir, 2000). The same aggressive behaviors recently have appeared in our schools as students who are bullied or taunted by classmates and teachers who respond with postal
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 34 shootings (Muir, 2000). According to Andersson and Pearson (1999) warnings of the need to pay close attention to incivility in the workplace may be the early warning signs that if ignored, may spiral into employee aggression of a physical nature. ―Unchecked incivility can lead to violent situations‖ (Gonthier, 2002, p. 177). An individual who has experienced an act of rudeness may replay the act over and over in his or her mind contemplating the intentions of the instigator as well as the many types of responses
(Porath et al., 2008). Consuming thoughts of a rude act may lessen attention spans causing disruption to focusing on tasks, and impact creativity (Muir, 2000). Pearson and
Porath (2009) found within their research that, ―80% of employees spent time at work worrying about the incident; 66% said their performance declined; and 78% said their commitment to the firm declined. Twelve percent said they left a firm because of uncivil treatment‖ (Broughton, 2009, p. 50). Mulling an incident of incivility over in one‘s head may ―elevate glucocorticoid levels throughout the day, leading to a host of health problems‖ (Pearson & Porath, 2009, p. 73). The results of incivility do not only produce bruised feelings, yet also include, ―anxiety, depression, nervousness, sadness, moodiness, excess worrying, and increases in minor illnesses such as colds and flu‖ (Gonthier, 2002, p. 37). Victims of incivility in the workplace experience a greater amount of burnout and tend to be absent from the job more often (Pearson & Porath, 2009). Unfair treatment has been found to be associated with retaliation actions such as theft (Greenberg, 2006) and vandalism (Porath & Erez, 2007; Fisher & Baron, 1982).
Not many employees follow through with taking action to openly speak about or seek corrective action when incivility occurs in the work environment
(Sidle, 2009). A few reasons why employees do not follow through with reporting
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 35 incivility include fear of retaliation and the difficulty to report uncivil behavior of a supervisor verses a coworker (Sidle, 2009). For many employees, ―instances of workplace incivility often go unreported by most employees causing effects of a decline in productivity, customer services, tardiness, absenteeism, and even violence‖ (Elder et al., 2004, p. 83; Pearson, 2003). Greater than 25% of employees who are victim to incivility at work admit reducing their workload efforts (Kusy & Holloway, 2009;
Pearson & Porath, 2005). Incivility is not the only contributing factor of absenteeism and stress for employees, yet the nature of incivility should not be disregarded for there are associated endangers to employee production, increases in health costs, and lost time on the job (Pearson & Porath, 2009). Cortina et al. (2001) reported in their study that 71% of court employee respondents‘ surveyed noted uncivil behavior during a five year period of time. Over time, consistent exposure to reoccurring incidents of incivilities shows some employees who experience signs of health problems. Employees may increase use of sick days due to physical illness, feelings of depression, and signs of anxiety (Johnson &
Indvik, 2001). Loss of job satisfaction and psychological distress caused by incivility greatly impact those who are targeted (Cortina et al., 2001). Employees who are unsatisfied or melancholic may expend anger on other employees as well as bring work vexation home to their families (Gillette, 1999).
Loss of Productivity
―Research lacks the adequate data to directly identify a clear relationship between workplace incivility and measures of productivity,‖ (Hutton, 2008, p. 168), ―yet estimates of cost nearing $400 million are associated with workplace violence‖ (Liberty
Mutual, 2004). Porath and Pearson (2009) surveyed and measured results of incivility
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 36 from thousands of participants representing various backgrounds. Their findings revealed
53% of time lost from work was due to worry, 46% of the participants thought of switching to a new job, 37% experienced less commitment to their division, 28% reported a loss of time away from their job and viewed this time as a detour from interfacing with reoccurrences of incivility, 22% of the participants reduced the amount of time spent at work, and 12% changed job positions (Pearson et al., 2000).
Studies also showed work relationship disagreements and deplorable manners collapse employee morale and impact productivity levels (McGrath, 2006). The glue of employee working relationships comes apart when incivility is prevalent in the workplace and management pays no attention (Gonthier, 2002). ―In some cases, rude behavior in the workplace can impact internal and external customer relationships which may result in an overall loss of productivity and business gains‖ (McGrath, 2006, p. 67). Additional risks may result as a consequence of rising instances of rude behavior towards internal and external customers thus resulting in overall loss of business gains (McGrath, 2006).
Contrary, acceptable manners create a positive and enjoyable workplace for employees to strengthen relationships and levels of productivity (McGrath, 2006).
According to Buhler (2007) estimates of over half of the victims of workplace incivility respond to this discomfort by decreasing their efforts of job responsibilities.
Incivility in the workplace generates a less than desirable setting preventing employees to perform to their fullest potential (Gonthier, 2002). The loss of performance as a result of incivility in the workplace destroys cost effectiveness (Pearson & Porath, 2009).
Additional losses noted within the research conducted by Pearson and Porath (2009) revealed that incivility affected an employee‘s motivation and ability to perform. When
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 37 tensions run high and personalities clash, conflicts among employees can gain momentum over time resulting from a mild altercation to that of a serious incident, i.e. forms of harassment, whistle blowing, litigations (Johnson & Indvik, 2001).
Confronting Incivility
Andersson and Pearson (1999) acknowledged confronting incivility is difficult due to the ambiguity with conducting research to define, develop, and measuring each offense. Deteriorating workforce morale, loss of productivity, turnover of positions, loss of client relationships, preservation of jobs, legal issues, and damage to the public image of the employer could be prevented by the implementation of creating a code of civility
(Gonthier, 2002). Andersson and Pearson (1999) stress the need for supervisors to model the right civil behavior in the presence of all employees in order to set the example of civil behavior and conduct. Supervisors may also benefit by engaging specialists and subject matter experts in human resources and ethics divisions within corporations to assist with training and necessary skills to help identify the potential issues of incivility outbreak (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Each employee needs to be aware of his or her own use of civility and can display an inadvertent level of rude behaviors, yet he or she needs to take caution to not let those behaviors escalate incivility to transform into unpleasant acts of violence (Gonthier, 2002).
Supervisors must take a proactive approach to enforce a zero-tolerance policy forbidding implications or physical harm towards all employees (Stack, 2003).
Awareness of conquering workplace incivility starts with each individual becoming aware of their own actions with a zero tolerance for accepting rude behavior (McGrath,
2006). ―A healthful workplace can lower frequencies of incivility, bullying, and
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 38 mobbing‖ (Wachs, 2009, para. 7). Fostering a setting of civility in the work environment preserves the values of drawing the very best from employees especially when employment numbers are firm (Gillette, 1999).
Summary
It should not be a surprise that uncivil behavior has moved stealthily into the workplace (Gonthier, 2002). A significant interest to maintain good behavior in the workplace remains apparent (Nye, Bosco, & Harvey, 2009). Many additional questions still remain as to why and how workplace incivility intentionally or unintentionally occurs (Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001). To put it bluntly, incivility hurts (Pearson
& Porath, 2009).
Research from Pearson and Porath (2009) revealed, ―no matter what stressful emotion incivility induces, the fact is that the mere presence of stress wreaks havoc in the workplace‖ (p. 72). The researcher observed from a review of the literature that an increase in civility awareness is needed. Pearson and Porath (2009) encourage,
―championing respect and caring in the workplace [to] improve civility throughout society‖ (p. 189). The researcher believes with technology flourishing, combined with stress factors, a concoction for incivility to corrupt a civil environment is likely. The researcher identified a gap in existing literature where additional research is needed to identify the acceptable tolerance level of rudeness within the workplace that will not diminish productivity levels and erode employee dignity and respect. In Chapter 3, the researcher provides the methodology used including a demographic information of the working graduate student research participants and the geographical locations where the research occurred. Instrumentation of the graduate student workplace incivility survey
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 39 and questionnaire for participant interviews are outlined as well as the framework for collecting quantitative and qualitative data.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 40
Chapter Three: Methodology
Method Design
Changes within the workforce movement during the 19th century introduced the implementation of process production as well as the advances of office systems, which established the beginning of the extrication for laborers and supervisors (The Virtual
Workforce, 2007). Historically when workers in the 1950‘s had a personal grievance to testify; most workers chose to remain silent due to fear of approaching their supervisor
(Schatz, 1984). The national view today of workplace incivility as an everyday grievance only began to appear in literary publications as recently as within the past 10 years
(Pearson & Porath, 2009). Regardless if incivility is intentional or not, it can trigger harmful emotions which, if not addressed could cause damaging outcomes to employees
(Pearson & Porath, 2009). Uncontained levels of workplace incivility may pollute the office environment to the point of becoming toxic, which causes harming effects to staff and personnel (Kusy & Holloway, 2009).
Consequences of incivility may bruise egos, yet the individual outcomes include,
―nervousness, sadness, moodiness, excess worrying, and increased minor illnesses such as colds and flu‖ (Condor, 2001, para. 9). Toxicity can often appear in today‘s workplace at any time without warning (Kusy & Holloway, 2009). From the researcher‘s perspective, despite the fact a number of surveys have already uncovered workplace incivility as a problematic issue in many work environments, additional research is needed to identify where escalations of workplace incivility are occurring. Incivility on the rise in the workplace remains a relatively uncultivated subject matter (Stoeltje, 2001).
―Paul Spector, an industrial / organizational psychologist at the University of Florida
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 41 stated there was not much data available when asked if workplace rudeness was on the rise‖ (Stoeltje, 2001, para. 16). Stoeltje (2001) notes according to researcher Lilia
Cortina, findings from 1,100 employees surveyed, ―71 percent of the participants responded that they‘d been on the receiving end of rude or uncivil treatment by co- workers or superiors in the past five years‖ (Stoeltje, 2001, para. 6). As the century has wound down, rudeness in the workplace has increased according to a University of North
Carolina study called, ―Workplace Incivility: The Target‘s Eye‖ including 1,400 employees of which 78% said, ―workplace rudeness has gotten worse in the past ten years‖ (Gillette, 1999, para. 1-2). Possible influences include both the growing intensity of incivility within society and increased competition among many professions (Elder et al., 2004). While it is significant to comprehend the causes and effects of incivility, it is also critical for employers to be aware of what persuades incivility (Cortina & Magley,
2009). ―Several economic and social trends have either intensified or heightened worker sensitivity to it—war, a bad economy, layoffs, greater workloads, increased productivity demands longer hours‖ (Stack, 2003, p. 112). ―Extremely stressful conditions can cause employees to have shorter tempers and poor working relationships‖ (Stack, 2003, p. 112).
The purpose of this study was to provide additional insight into the issue of workplace incivility from the viewpoint of working graduate students who represent a diverse population of employees with short term and long-term career paths and a broad range of employment service years. Previous studies of graduate students have focused on classroom incivility (McKinne, 2008) and comparisons of faculty and student perceptions of incivility; this research will add to the body of knowledge by establishing if there are common perceptions of working graduate students of incivility across various
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 42 academic disciplines and current occupations or age and gender both which have already been addressed in the literature quantitatively (Montgomery et al., 2004). ―The central argument is that incivility, in some cases, is not ‗general‘ at all but instead represents contemporary manifestations of gender and racial bias in the workplace‖ (Cortina, 2008, p. 55). Prejudice against age is a contributing factor for both the initiating individual as well as the target (Pearson & Porath, 2009). This study adds additional research on technology in the workplace and its relationship to perceptions of incivility, since research in this area is lacking.
Research Questions
1. How do working graduate students define civil and uncivil behavior in the workplace?
2. To what extent do working graduate students perceive incivility as a growing problem in the workplace?
3. In what ways do working graduate students relate incivility in their workplace to job satisfaction?
4. In what ways do working graduate students perceive incivility as related to their productivity in their workplace?
5. How do working graduate students perceive their effectiveness in prevention and response to workplace incivility?
6. How do working graduate students perceive their employers‘ effectiveness in prevention and response to workplace incivility?
7. What types of behavior (verbal/non-verbal) do working graduate students perceive as contributing to a toxic workplace?
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 43
8. To what extent do working graduate students examine their own contributions to workplace incivility?
9. How do working graduate students perceive the use of technology as contributing to workplace incivility?
10. How (and if) do the answers to RQ 1-9 vary for working graduate students of different demographic groups (academic discipline, workplace environment, supervisory role, age, gender, ethnicity, etc.)?
Hypotheses
Null hypothesis # 1: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view that workplace incivility is unchanged when compared to previous years.
Null hypothesis # 2: There is no relationship between the generation of the research participant and the view that workplace incivility is unchanged when compared to previous years.
Null hypothesis # 3: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the perception of the level to which incivility in the workplace affects job satisfaction.
Null hypothesis # 4: There is no relationship between the generation of the research participant and the perception of the level to which incivility in the workplace affects job satisfaction.
Null hypothesis # 5: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view of the level to which incivility affects productivity of employees in the workplace.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 44
Null hypothesis # 6: There is no relationship between the generation of the research participant and the view of the level to which incivility affects productivity of employees in the workplace.
Null hypothesis # 7: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view of the training to learn how to deal with incivility in the workplace.
Null hypothesis # 8: There is no relationship between the generation of the research participant and the view of the training to learn how to deal with incivility in the workplace.
Null hypothesis # 9: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the perception of the preparedness to deal with incivility in the workplace.
Null hypothesis # 10: There is no relationship between the generations of the research participant and the perception of the preparedness to deal with incivility in the workplace.
Null hypothesis # 11: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view of the level to which there is a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace.
Null hypothesis # 12: There is no relationship between the generation of the research participant and the view of the level to which there is a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace.
Null hypothesis # 13: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view of the level of effectiveness of a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 45
Null hypothesis # 14: There is no relationship between the generation of the research participant and the view of the level of effectiveness of a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace.
Null hypothesis # 15: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and belief that there is incivility in the workplace.
Null hypothesis # 16: There is no relationship between the generation of the research participant and belief that there is incivility in the workplace.
This sequential mixed methods study examined the perceptions of workplace incivility of working graduate students enrolled in an accelerated graduate degree program at a four-year private university located in the Midwest. The perceptions of workplace incivility examined in this study include the following: each participant‘s definition of civil and uncivil behavior, incivility as a possible growing issue, impact of incivility on the participant‘s job satisfaction, the impact of incivility on the participant‘s perceived productivity, participants‘ perceptions of their own preventative actions and responses to workplace incivility as well as the effectiveness of these actions, participants‘ perceptions of their employer‘s preventative actions and responses to workplace incivility as well as the effectiveness of these actions, participants‘ beliefs about the types of uncivil behavior (verbal / non-verbal) that contribute towards a toxic workplace, whether or not participants perceive their own behavior(s) contribute towards workplace incivility, and participants‘ technology usage and its relationship to perceptions of incivility.
The definition of ―perceptions of incivility‖ used in this study was developed by a variety of research studies on incivility in different types of workplace environments
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 46
(Kusy & Holloway, 2009) and incivility in the classroom (McKinne, 2008). The surveys
Faculty Incivility Survey and Student Incivility Survey adapted from Dr. McKinne‘s
(2008) dissertation, A Quantitative and Qualitative Inquiry into Classroom Incivility in
Higher Education addressed each of these topics through a Likert scale survey. The questionnaire adapted from McKinne (2008) included an open-ended question format for gathering added detail and examples of incivility within workplace environments in order to add to the body of literature about workplace incivility.
Research Context
The four-year private university located in the Midwest used in this study included 10 satellite campus locations within two Midwestern states. The 2010 spring quarter of the accelerated graduate degree program held classes during a 12-week schedule beginning April 5th and commencing June 28th. The majority of graduate classes were conducted during the evening hours of 6:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday and Saturdays during the hours of 10:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. The researcher selected the four-year private university in the Midwest primarily because the researcher had previous knowledge of the university‘s diverse graduate degree programs. In addition, several terminal degrees offered within the accelerated graduate degree program aligned to several literature workplace incivility problematic topic areas such as: accounting, legal professions (Elder et al., 2004), in hospitals, health care facilities
(Kerfoot, 2008), business (Ramsey, 2008), and human resources (Donkin, 2009). At the time of this study the four-year private university located in the Midwest offered 13 accelerated graduate degree programs in the following disciplines shown in Table 2.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 47
Table 2
Accelerated Graduate Degrees
Degree Graduate Degree Abbreviation
Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.)
Master of Science in Administration, Management Emphasis (M.S.A.)
Master of Science in Administration, Marketing Emphasis (M.S.A.)
Master of Arts in Communication, Digital & Multimedia Emphasis (M.A.)
Master of Arts in Communication, Media Management Emphasis (M.A.)
Master of Arts in Communication, Promotions Emphasis (M.A.)
Master of Arts in Communication, Training & Development Emphasis (M.A.)
Masters of Science in Criminal Justice Administration (M.S.)
Master of Arts in Gerontology (M.A.)
Master of Science in Health Management (M.S.)
Master of Science in Human Resource Management (M.S.)
Master of Science in Managing Information Technology (M.S.)
Master of Fine Arts in Writing (M.F.A.)
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 48
Population
The sample population of participants for this study included working graduate students enrolled in an accelerated degree program at a four-year private university located in the Midwest. The researcher contacted the Dean of Academic services at the four-year private university located in the Midwest for an introductory meeting to assess the graduate student enrollment populations. The researcher requested permission to review the 2010 spring quarter graduate student enrollment numbers from the researched university‘s database records. There was no need to request additional graduate student demographic or sensitive information, which would not support specific or significant details within the findings of this study (Cone & Foster, 2006). After examination of the four-year private university‘s accelerated graduate selection of degree programs and accelerated graduate student enrollment populations, the researcher concluded the majority of the accelerated graduate degree programs provided an adequate and manageable sample number for surveying. ―Due to expense, time, size of population, it is not possible to use the entire population for a study; therefore a sample is used‖ (Bluman,
2008, p. 4). The researcher chose to use a convenience sample as representation of the population (Bluman, 2008). Accelerated graduate degree programs with low enrollment numbers of 10 or less were not included in this study. The researcher used the following accelerated graduate degree programs in this study displayed in Table 3.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 49
Table 3
Spring Quarter 2010 Graduate Student Enrollment (as of May 20, 2010)
Enrolled Degree Graduate Degree Graduate Abbreviation Students
Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) 286
Masters of Science in Criminal Justice (M.S.) 68 Administration
Master of Arts in Gerontology (M.A.) 12
Master of Science in Health Management (M.S.) 65
Master of Science in Human Resource Management (M.S.) 91
The 2010 accelerated working graduate student population represented in this study consisted of students that attended evening and weekend classes unlike the traditional graduate students that attended only day classes. The accelerated graduate degree program was developed by this four-year private university, located in the
Midwest, for students who were unable to attend day classes due to schedule conflicts.
The flexibility of the accelerated degree program allowed graduates to attend class on a part-time basis, in turn while balancing family and career. Graduate classes offered in the accelerated program consisted of three related subject area graduate courses (nine hours) referred to as ―clusters‖. Each cluster was composed of a subject area and instructors convened weekly classes for four-hour meetings throughout a consecutive 12-week quarter term. Class size included a small ratio of 30 to 1 or fewer students, which provided a forum to exchange learning experiences.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 50
―What‘s happening in more and more workplaces across the country, [in] the absence of civility on the job, pollutes the culture of the organization and erodes productivity‖ (Ramsey, 2008, p. 3). ―When basic civility is lacking on the job, relationships unravel, work suffers and the entire organization falters‖ (Ramsey, 2008, p.
3). The purpose of this study was to compare the similarities and differences of participants‘ perceptions of incivility based on demographics such as age, gender, workplace environment, academic discipline, and supervisory role (management/non- management) from a qualitative and quantitative perspective.
Instrumentation
Surveying is a common form of data collection discussed in the literature on incivility (Clark, Farnsworth, & Landrum, 2009). The researcher used a tailored version of Dr. McKinne‘s surveys Faculty Incivility Survey and Student Incivility Survey from
McKinne‘s (2008) dissertation, A Quantitative Inquiry into Classroom Incivility in
Higher Education, that was a reworked copy of Indiana University‘s (2000) Survey of
Academic Incivility. The researcher contacted Dr. McKinne via e-mail requesting permission (see Appendix A) to customize his survey for this study. McKinne (2008) surveyed a random sample of undergraduate students from one college and two universities majoring in education and psychology. ―Of the 1,000 student surveys emailed, 197 were completed, yielding a return rate of 20%‖ (McKinne, 2008, p. 52).
Additionally, McKinne (2008) surveyed faculty from one college and two universities.
―Of the 75 surveys emailed out, 52 were completed, yielding a return rate of 69%‖
(McKinne, 2008, p. 52).The survey instrument Graduate Student Workplace Incivility
Survey (see Appendix B) for this study used questions from McKinne‘s surveys as the
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 51 structure to assess working graduate students‘ perceptions‘ towards incivility in the workplace.
Demographics of Survey Participants
The Graduate Student Workplace Incivility Survey (see Appendix B) focused upon accumulating demographic information from each participant. Eight demographic survey questions were structured as a multiple choice response selection allowing each participant to mark their response using an "X" in the appropriate box, or by providing a hand written answer in the text box provided. The researcher manually transposed participant response into Excel 2007 and then loaded the coded responses into Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 19. Descriptive statistical and descriptive frequency reports from SPSS tabulated percentage totals for each demographic question.
Demographic question 1) Please select your current graduate degree major listed the five graduate degrees as selected and described in Chapter 3. Graduate degree population results from question 1 show (n=212) Business Administration, (n=50)
Criminal Justice Management, (n=12) Gerontology, (n=48) Health Management, (n=76)
Human Resource Management, (n=1) Business Administration_MSA, (n=1)
Marketing_MSA, and (n=3) Communications. Of the responses, (n=2) did not provide a selection. Demographics of working graduate degree student degree programs percentages are listed in Figure 1.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 52
Working Graduate Student Survey Degree Major Population
.
Business 52%
Human
Resource Communications 19% 1% Health Mgmt 12% Criminal Gerontology Justice 3% 12%
Figure 1. Working Graduate Student Degree Major Population. Scale of pie chart displays populations representing 1% and greater. Populations representing 1% and greater. Response rate of Working Graduate Survey Participants. Pie chart is representative of types of graduate degree majors, and percentage of each graduate degree major.
Responses collected from demographic question 2) Please select your gender revealed the population of participants included (n=244) females, and (n=160) males. Of the working graduate student responses, (n=1) did not provide a selection. Demographics of working graduate student gender percentages are listed in Figure 2.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 53
Working Graduate Student Gender Population
Male Female 40% 60%
n/a 0%
Figure 2.Working Graduate Student Gender Population. Response rate of Working Graduate Survey Participants. Pie chart is representative of gender type, and gender percentage.
Demographic question 3) What is your Race or Ethnic identification? included a text box for each participant to hand write their response. Alternatively, participants could select the decline to respond option for this question. The researcher referenced the 2010 Bureau of Labor Statistics website list of race or ethnic groups in order to categorize responses from each participant. A total of 11 race groups represented the population of participants as (n=223) White alone, Black or African American alone
(n=117), (n=1) American Indian alone, (n=1) Asian alone, (n=3) Asian Indian alone,
(n=1) Other specified Asian alone, (n=1) Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, (n=1) Black or African American; some other race, (n=1) White; Black or African
American; some other race, (n=4) Hispanic or Latino (of any race), (n=6) Other. (n=7) of participants did not provide a response and (n=38) of participants selected the box decline
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 54 to respond. Demographics of working graduate student race or ethnic identification percentages are listed in Figure 3.
Working Graduate Student Race or Ethnic Identification Population
n_a White alone 2% 55%
Declined to respond 10% Other 2%
Hispanic Black or African or Latino American alone (of any race) 29% 4 1% Asian alone 1%
Figure 3.Working Graduate Student Race or Ethnic Identification Population. Scale of pie chart displays populations percentages representing 1% or greater. Response rate of Working Graduate Survey Participants. Pie chart is representative of races or ethnic identifications, and percentages of races or ethnic identifications.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 55
Demographic question 4) In what range of years were you born? presented four selections for participants to select which span years they were born within as well as the option to select decline to respond. The total number working graduate students identified as Traditionalist (1900-1945) were (n=2), followed by the Baby Boomers
(1946-1964) (n=65). The largest two populaces of working graduate students represented were Generation X (1965-1980) (n=174), and Generation Y (1981-199) (n=161). Those participants that did not provide a response summed (n=2), and the decline to respond total was (n=1). Demographics of working graduate student gender percentages are listed in Figure 4.
Graduate Student Survey Generation
GENERATION Y
40% GENERATION X
43%
BABY BOOMERS
16% TRADITIONALISTS 1%
Figure 4.Working Graduate Student Generation Population. Response rate of Working Graduate Survey Participants. Pie chart is representative of generational years and names, and each graduate generation population. Scale of pie chart displays population‘s percentage of representing less than 1%.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 56
The text box made available for demographic question 5 asked participants to provide their hand written response for What is your current job occupation? (If not employed at this time, please provide detail of your most recent job occupation). The researcher manually transposed hand written responses from each participant into Excel
2007. Using the 2010 Bureau of Labor Statistics website job occupation listing, the researcher coded and grouped participant responses and then loaded the coded responses into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 19. Referencing from the
2010 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics website job occupation listing, the researcher grouped 20 job occupation classifications and occupation codes. Management
Occupations (n=51), Business and Financial Operations Occupations equated as the largest population (n=107), Computer and Mathematical Occupations (n=5), Architecture and Engineering Occupations (n=6), Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations
(n=1), Community and Social Service Occupations (n=15), Legal Occupations (n= 2),
Education, Training, and Library Occupations (n=31), Art, Design, Entertainment,
Sports, and Media Occupations (n=4), Healthcare Practitioners and Technical
Occupations (n=31), Healthcare Support Occupations (n=3), Protective Service
Occupations (n=37), Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations (n=3), Buildings and Grounds Cleaning Maintenance (n=1), Personal Care and Service Occupations (n=1),
Sales and Related Occupations (n=20), Office and Administrative Support Occupations
(n=59), Construction and Extraction Occupations (n=1), Military Specified Occupations
(n=5), Occupations not listed (n=6). The number of participants that identified themselves as unemployed was n=11. Participants that did not provide a response totaled
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 57 n=4. Demographics of working graduate student job occupations percentages are listed in Figure 5.
Working Graduate Student Survey Job Occupation
Office and Administrative Support Management Occupations Sales and Occupations 15% Healthcare Related 13% Practitioners Occupations and 5% Technical Occupations Unemployed 3% 8% Business and Education, Financial Training, Operations and Library Occupations Occupations 26% 8% Community and Social Service Occupations 4%
Figure 5.Working Graduate Student Job Occupation Population. Response rate of Working Graduate Survey Participants. Scale of pie chart displays populations percentages representing greater than 1%. Pie chart is representative of job occupation categories, graduate job occupation percentages.
Demographic question 6) Please select the number of years of service you have completed in your current job occupation with your employer? provided eight numeric ranges of years that best represents the total number of employment years of service each participant completed within his or her current profession. The bulk of the working graduate students signify the service year range of zero to two years of service (n=148),
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 58 the next largest population of working graduate students have three to five years of service (n=101), followed by five to 10 years of service (n=81), 10 to 15 years of service
(n=38), 15 to 20 years of service (n=10), 20 to 25 years of service (n=14), 25 to 30 years of service (n=3), and 30 to 35 years of service (n=2). Participants that did not provide a response equated n=8. Demographics of working graduate student number of years of service are listed in Figure 6.
Working Graduate Student Employment Years of Service
n/a 2% 30 to 35 0 to 2 1% 37%
25 to 30 1% 3 to 5 20 to 25 10 to 15 25% 3% 9% 5 to 10 15 to 20 20% 2%
Figure 6. Working Graduate Student Employment Number Years of Service. Response rate of Working Graduate Survey Participants. Pie chart is representative of working graduate student employment range number years of service, and total values.
Demographic question 7) What is your job title classification? asked participants to mark the job classification that represented their current job occupation. Participants responses of job title classifications were Management (n=116), Management Other
(n=1), Non-Management (n=155), Non-Management Hourly (n=5), Non-Management
Hourly Self-Employed (n=1), Hourly (n=95), Temp/Seasonal (n=5), Self Employed
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 59
(n=5), Other (n=12), Other analyst (n=1), Other Salary Non-Management (n=1). n=8 of participants did not provide a response. Demographics of working graduate student job title classification are listed in Figure 7.
Working Graduate Student Survey Job
Title Classification
Management/ Hourly 1%
Non- Management Management 29% n/a 38% 2%
Other Hourly 3% 24% Non- Self -Employed Management/ 1% Temp/Seasonal Hourly 1% 1%
Figure 7.Working Graduate Student Job Title Classification of Current Job Occupation. Response rate of Working Graduate Survey Participants. Pie chart is representative of working graduate student job title classification of current job occupation, working graduate and student population percentages. Scale of pie chart displays percentages representing 1% or greater.
Demographic question 8) Please select the highest level of education you have complete. The majority of the working graduate student responses show the highest level of education completion of a Bachelors (n=291), a Post Bachelors (n=44), a
Bachelor_Post Bachelors (n=2), a Bachelors_Graduate (n=2), a Bachelors_Post Graduate
(n=2), a Graduate (n=42), a Post_Graduate (n=9), and a Doctoral (n=4). Of the participants, n=9 did not provide a response. Demographics of working graduate student job title classification percentages are listed in Figure 8.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 60
Working Graduate Student Survey
Highest Level of Education Completed
n/a 2% Doctoral 1%
Post Graduate
2% Bachelors Graduate 72% Bachelors/ 10% Graduate 1% Post Bachelors 11% Bachelors/Post Bachelors 1%
Figure 8. Working Graduate Student Highest Level of Education Completed. Response rate of Working Graduate Survey Highest Level of Education Completed of working graduate student job title classification of current job occupation, and working graduate student population percentages. Scale of pie chart displays populations percentages representing 1% or greater.
Gathering of Data
Data can be amassed in an assortment of means (Bluman, 2008). The researcher provided and distributed two exact paper copies of the informed consent form to each working graduate student who volunteered to participate in the study. The informed consent form (see Appendix C) provided background of the purpose of the survey, notation for the completion of the survey to be completed only during the scheduled class time, the anonymity of all survey responses, specified detail explanation of the researcher‘s control to safeguard the survey data, contact information of the researcher and the researcher‘s university advisors, signature of the primary investigator, and a participant signature line for consent to participate in the study. Working graduate students that participated in the study read and signed one of the consent forms and kept
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 61 the other informed consent form as their documentation reference of the research study.
The signed informed consent forms were collected and verified by the researcher prior to the distribution of the paper survey. The paper survey instrument Graduate Student
Workplace Incivility Survey (see Appendix B) used for this study was composed of a six page paper copy questionnaire format which included demographic multiple choice questions and open text box questions for handwritten response and additional comments.
Structured format for the workplace incivility survey questions included Likert scale, multiple choice selection, and open text box which provided for hand written responses.
The gathering of qualitative demographic responses for this study required each participant to provide the current or most recent job occupation, as well as the classification of the job title (i.e. management, non-management, temp/seasonal, hourly, self-employed, or other). Each participant was given the option to hand write the current occupation, which was posed as a text box question to demonstrate the assorted types of occupations among the participants in the study (Cone & Foster, 2006). In addition, each participant was asked to provide their race or ethnic identification by means of handwriting their response in the text box made available or by selecting ―decline to respond.‖
In the order to differentiate types of work environment responses, the researcher used the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics on the 2010 website to classify, group, regroup and code according to the response provided by each participant. All quantitative demographic responses, in the form of frequencies, (i.e. graduate degree major, gender, generation, the number of years of service within the participant‘s current job occupation, and highest level of education completed) were provided in a multiple-choice format. The
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 62 researcher chose to use this format for the collection of demographics to then ―sort them into groups based on participant characteristics and not randomly assigned‖ (Cone &
Foster, 2006, p.129).
The qualitative segment of this study focused on the collection of interview response data with the use of a follow up qualitative questionnaire modified from
McKinne‘s (2008) research instrument (see Appendix D) consisting of 14 questions. The researcher provided a verbal explanation of the follow up face-to-face interview process while proctoring the survey to each graduate class. Working graduate students who completed the quantitative survey had the opportunity to accept or decline in the qualitative segment of the study. The scheduling of face-to-face interviews succeeded the survey segment of the study. Participants that voluntarily chose to participate in the qualitative segment of this study submitted a signed consent form with their respective contact information (phone number(s) and/or email) (see Appendix E).
Following the graduate student workplace incivility survey segment of this study, the researcher allotted an eight week timeframe for the scheduling and administration of working graduate student face-to-face interviews. The focus of the face-to-face interviews was to gather additional detail and testimony from each working graduate student regarding every participant‘s firsthand experience with workplace incivility.
During the survey segment of this study, 38 working graduate student consent forms were collected by the researcher and research assistant for voluntary participation in the face- to-face interviews. The researcher attempted to contact each of the 38 working graduate students through the use of the hand written contact information provided by each working graduate student on the interview consent form that was collected. The plan was
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 63 to interview approximately 15 working graduate students. From the 38 consent forms from the graduate students who agreed to be contacted for an interview, the researcher arranged 18 interviews. However, one working graduate student was turned away from participating by the researcher due to the inability of the researcher to schedule a face-to- face interview that would extend beyond the eight week pre-planned scheduled timeframe for the researcher to conduct interviews. The researcher scheduled 17 face-to- face interviews for the volunteer working graduate students during an eight week timetable that began July 13, 2010, and commenced September 2, 2010. One working graduate student completed the assigned interview questions via e-mail due to geographic constraints restricting meeting with the researcher face-to-face. The researcher chose to conduct stand-alone face-to-face interviews with each working graduate student at a public location either within one of the nine 4-year private university satellite campuses, or at an offsite location (i.e. café/ eatery).
The researcher received permission from the Dean of the accelerated graduate degree programs of the four-year private university to survey the working graduate students during the spring quarter of 2010. The dean drafted an introductory e-mail (see
Appendix F) to each graduate degree department chair as notification that permission had been granted to the researcher to survey the working graduate students enrolled in the accelerated graduate degree programs. The researcher drafted follow up communication to each department chair (see Appendix G) within the accelerated graduate degree programs, including a written explanation of the study and requested each department chair to act as a liaison to the researcher for contacting accelerated graduate degree program instructors. Each accelerated graduate degree program department chair
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 64 provided the researcher the names and contact information (phone number(s) and/or emails) for each accelerated graduate degree program instructor. The researcher contacted each accelerated graduate degree program instructor to request permission and arrange a time to administer the paper survey for the study to one of their scheduled graduate classes during the spring quarter of 2010. The researcher contacted 55 accelerated graduate degree program instructors and in return 54 accelerated graduate degree program instructors granted permission to the researcher to survey the working graduate students during a prearranged scheduled class date and time.
The researcher created a calendar (see Appendix H) for the scheduling and planning of visiting the accelerated graduate degree program classes over a period of six weeks during the months of May and June in the spring quarter of 2010 for paper survey distribution. The researcher arranged and compressed as many evening classroom visits as possible between commuting among four-year private university‘s nine satellite campuses locations between two Midwestern states. Due to schedule overlap and the inability to survey multiple satellite campuses simultaneously, the researcher, with the aid of a university research assistant, were able to fulfill paper survey distribution and collection to the 54 accelerated graduate degree program classes. The researcher visited and surveyed 49 accelerated graduate degree program classes and the research assistant surveyed five classes. See Table 4.
A total of 479 working graduate degree students represented the enrollment population for the 54 accelerated graduate degree program classes within the five degree programs for the paper survey populace.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 65
Table 4
2010 Spring Quarter Graduate Satellite Campuses
Campus Name Graduate Students Graduate Classes
Campus BEL 98 10
Campus DWN 33 4
Campus EST 9 1
Campus LUC 108 12
Campus NOC 38 5
Campus OFA 25 2
Campus SOC 18 3
Campus WEN 16 3
Campus WSP 124 13
Campus WEL 10 1
Five working graduate students enrolled in one accelerated graduate degree program that was not selected to be included for this study participated in the paper survey segment. The cause of the integration of the five working graduate students representing Master of Arts in Communications, and Master of Science in Administration degrees was due to a screening oversight caused by the researcher‘s lack of knowledge to investigate the possibility of enrollment overlap within core curriculum clusters. The 405 working graduate students who participated in the survey segment of this study yielded
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 66
an acceptance rate of 85%. Twenty-eight working graduate students, or 6% declined to
participate in the survey, and 49 working graduate students, or 10% of the population
were recorded as being tardy or absent during the time in which the survey was
conducted (See Table 5).
Table 5
2010 Spring Quarter Graduate Survey
Number Campus Name of Classes Enrolled Accept Decline Absent
Master of Business Administration 29 274 228 18 31
Masters of Science in Criminal Justice Administration 4 42 33 3 6
Master of Arts in Gerontology 2 15 12 3 0
Master of Science in Health Management 7 60 57 1 2
Master of Science in Human Resource Management 12 88 75 1 10
Totals 54 479 405 26 49
Data Analysis
The focus of this study was to examine the perceptions that working graduate
students have today towards workplace incivility. The collection of how to examine
uncivil behaviors ranged from soliciting individuals, taking part in a survey, or tracking
through the use of a personal journal (Pearson & Porath, 2009). The organization of the
demographic questions in the survey provided the foundation for the compilation of the
data for presentation by means of descriptive statistics for this study (Bluman, 2008). The
voluntary option outlined in the paper survey consent form offered working graduate
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 67 students the choice to decline to answer any question on the survey, or rescind any response to a question within the survey. The majority of the quantitative questions presented in the paper survey included Likert scale answer selections. Participant responses from the survey questions resulted in both quantitative and qualitative data.
The researcher used an Excel spreadsheet to record responses from each quantitative survey question and then coded responses to transpose into Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS) version 19. Chi-square analysis for independence and analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests used data summarized from quantitative survey questions 3 through 13 to determine response differences among gender and generation. The Pearson
Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was used to examine the relationship within the quantitative responses of the participants. The researcher used Excel, to summarize for analysis, each working graduate student‘s handwritten response for the qualitative questions within the paper survey. Livescribe™ Pulse™smartpen captured participant face-to-face interview responses from the questionnaire. The researcher used Word to transpose the audio transcriptions from each working graduate student face-to-face interview to identify themes, including similarities and differences among the participants.
Summary
Chapter 3 presented the framework of the methodology and research design format used for this study. The descriptive detail of the research content and site locations identified within this study provided a foundation for the layout and collection of field research. Illustration of the selection of participants and depiction of the instrument tools shaped the survey population for this study. The method for collecting and statistical
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 68 analysis reviewing quantitative and qualitative data was noted and will be expanded upon in the next chapter. Chapter 4 organizes the findings and data results of this study.
Chapter 5 summaries the results of the study, discusses conclusions, and provides recommendations of future studies on the subject.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 69
Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Findings
Overview
The justification for this mixed methods study was to address the growing problem of incivility in the workplace from the perspectives of working graduate students enrolled in an accelerated graduate degree program at a four-year private university located in the Midwest. The organized framework of this study includes two segments: to recognize workers viewpoints of workplace behavior characterized as tolerable and intolerable in the workplace, and a concentrated focus for both management and employees to contend with and eradicate uncivil behavioral occurrences in the work environment.
Survey Participants
The population of participants used for this research study embodies working graduate students enrolled in an accelerated graduate degree program at a four-year private university located in the Midwest. Of the five accelerated graduate degree programs included for this study, 54 accelerated graduate classes served as the starting point for paper survey distribution over a period of six weeks during the spring 2010 quarter. The total sample within the 54 accelerated graduate classes spanning over 10 satellite campuses located within two Midwestern states totaled 479 working graduate students. Overall paper survey collection provided a total of 405 working graduate students yielding a participation response rate of 85%. As an outcome of the survey completion, 18 working graduate students voluntarily chose to participate in scheduled face-to-face interviews to complete the questionnaire segment of this study.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 70
Interview Participants
The first working graduate student face-to-face interview was held on July 13,
2010, and the final interview concluded on September 2, 2010. The researcher and each working graduate student agreed upon a meeting location in a public setting exempt from the university classroom setting. The researcher allowed flexible scheduling of face-to- face interviews to occur during day or evening hours during the week as well as weekend days. Of the 18 working graduate students that volunteered to participate, seven were male and 11 were female. The 18 working graduate students that volunteered to participate in the interviews represented six of the 10 satellite campuses located within the graduate student survey sample population. Additionally, the researcher observed a diverse working graduate degree representation of the interview participants majoring in four of the five working graduate degree programs chosen for this study (see Table 6).
Table 6
Working Graduate Student Interviewee Demographic Degree Campus Date of Run Name Gender Major Surveyed Interview Time GSTUDENT #1 M CRIMINOLOGY CAMPUS DWN 7/13/2010 22:28 GSTUDENT #2 F BUSINESS CAMPUS OFA 7/15/2010 1:32:09 GSTUDENT #3 F BUSINESS CAMPUS DWN 7/16/2010 1:00:25 GSTUDENT #4 F BUSINESS CAMPUS LUC 7/17/2010 34:23:00 GSTUDENT #5 M BUSINESS CAMPUS LUC 7/19/2010 1:02:05 GSTUDENT #6 F BUSINESS CAMPUS OFA 7/20/2010 1:08:58 GSTUDENT #7 F CRIMINOLOGY CAMPUS LUC 7/21/2010 42:29:00 GSTUDENT #8 M BUSINESS CAMPUS WSP 7/26/2010 59:20:00 GSTUDENT #9 M CRIMINOLOGY CAMPUS BEL 8/5/2010 1:50:46 GSTUDENT #10 F BUSINESS CAMPUS BEL 8/9/2010 44:40:00 GSTUDENT #11 F GERONTOLOGY CAMPUS WSP 8/10/2010 2:17:37 GSTUDENT #12 F HEALTH MGMT CAMPUS WSP 8/11/2010 1:25:46 GSTUDENT #13 M CRIMINOLOGY CAMPUS BEL 8/17/2010 1:02:19 GSTUDENT #14 F BUSINESS CAMPUS OFA 8/19/2010 1:17:21 GSTUDENT #15 M CRIMINOLOGY CAMPUS LUC 8/24/2010 1:03:25 GSTUDENT #16 F HEALTH MGMT CAMPUS WSP 8/27/2010 1:24:28 GSTUDENT #17 F BUSINESS CAMPUS BEL 9/4/2010 1:39:10 GSTUDENT #18 M CRIMINOLOGY CAMPUS WSP 7/21/2010 N/A
Note. Fictitious names are substituted for working graduate students and campus locations.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 71
Upon meeting each individual for the scheduled face-to-face interview, the researcher provided each working graduate student two exact paper copies of the interview consent form for review and signature. The face-to-face interview consent form provided the background and purpose of the study, the amount of participation time required (approximately 45 minutes) of each working graduate student to complete the face-to-face interview, the option for voluntary withdrawal at any time, as well as the option to not answer any question during our meeting. Other items on the consent form included specification that all responses would be completely nameless and unidentified, the researcher‘s control and handling to protect all interview content, the researcher‘s and university advisory point of contact information, handwritten signature of the primary investigator, and signature line for each working graduate student for consent to participate in the face-to-face interview (see Appendix E). The researcher kept one signed interview consent form as record and the other signed interview consent form served as documentation and reference for the working graduate student to keep.
The qualitative instrument used for the face-to-face interview segment of this study included a follow up questionnaire modified from McKinne‘s (2008) research instrument (see Appendix D) inclusive of 14 questions. The researcher provided a paper copy of the 14 questions to each working graduate student participant as reference prior to the start of each face-to-face interview. The operating rhythm of the interview process consisted of the researcher reading questions from the questionnaire in descending order to the interviewee and use of the Livescribe™Pulse ™smartpen for dialogue recording and note taking. The researcher did not enforce a time constraint for the face-to-face interview interval. This allowed for each interviewee to take as much time as needed to
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 72 cogitate about his or her own work environment and encounters of workplace incivility.
Durations of the face-to-face interviews with all the working graduate student participants spanned from 22 minutes up to approximately two hours. Upon completion of the last scheduled face-to-face interview, the researcher transcribed each participant‘s audio recording to text for review of content and analysis.
Research Questions
The following 10 research questions directed the quantitative and qualitative segments of this mixed methods study:
1. How do working graduate students define civil and uncivil behavior in the
workplace?
2. To what extent do working graduate students perceive incivility as a growing
problem in the workplace?
3. In what ways do working graduate students relate incivility in their workplace
to job satisfaction?
4. In what ways do working graduate students perceive incivility as related to
their productivity in their workplace?
5. How do working graduate students perceive their effectiveness in prevention
and response to workplace incivility?
6. How do working graduate students perceive their employers effectiveness in
prevention and response to workplace incivility?
7. What types of behavior (verbal/non-verbal) do working graduate students
perceive as contributing to a toxic workplace?
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 73
8. To what extent do working graduate students examine their own contributions
to workplace incivility?
9. How do working graduate students perceive the use of technology as
contributing to workplace incivility?
10. How (and if) do the answers to research questions 1-9 vary for working
graduate students of different demographic groups (academic discipline,
workplace environment, supervisory role, age, gender, ethnicity, etc.)?
Hypotheses
Null hypothesis # 1: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view that workplace incivility is unchanged when compared to previous years.
Null hypothesis # 2: There is no relationship between the generation of the research participant and the view that workplace incivility is unchanged when compared to previous years.
Null hypothesis # 3: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the perception of the level to which incivility in the workplace affects job satisfaction.
Null hypothesis # 4: There is no relationship between the generation of the research participant and the perception of the level to which incivility in the workplace affects job satisfaction.
Null hypothesis # 5: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view of the level to which incivility affects productivity of employees in the workplace.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 74
Null hypothesis # 6: There is no relationship between the generation of the research participant and the view of the level to which incivility affects productivity of employees in the workplace.
Null hypothesis # 7: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view of the training to learn how to deal with incivility in the workplace.
Null hypothesis # 8: There is no relationship between the generation of the research participant and the view of the training to learn how to deal with incivility in the workplace.
Null hypothesis # 9: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the perception of the preparedness to deal with incivility in the workplace.
Null hypothesis # 10: There is no relationship between the generation of the research participant and the perception of the preparedness to deal with incivility in the workplace.
Null hypothesis # 11: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view of the level to which there is a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace.
Null hypothesis # 12: There is no relationship between the generation of the research participant and the view of the level to which there is a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace.
Null hypothesis # 13: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view of the level of effectiveness of a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 75
Null hypothesis # 14: There is no relationship between the generation of the research participant and the view of the level of effectiveness of a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace.
Null hypothesis # 15: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and belief that there is incivility in the workplace.
Null hypothesis # 16: There is no relationship between the generation of the research participant and belief that there is incivility in the workplace.
Analysis of Data
Working graduate student survey responses to the questions for the Graduate
Student Workplace Incivility Survey generated both quantitative and qualitative answers.
The researcher manually transposed all quantitative responses as selected by each working graduate student participant into Excel and then transferred data responses as an export upload from Excel into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version
19. A myriad of data comparisons including frequency percentages, weighted means, regression statistics, ANOVA, and Chi-Square tests provided statistical data reports to illustrate differences and similarities within the dependent variables for gender and generation.
Several survey questions additionally provided open text box areas for working graduate students to hand write additional responses and comments. The researcher manually transposed all qualitative responses from the open text boxes into Excel for sorting and filtering to further review and analyze of the subject matter. Due to the large volume of data collected from all survey responses and the voluminous output from the face to face interviews, the researcher chose content data responses from select questions
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 76 and interview responses to address and support each research question in this study. The researcher substituted fictitious references for anonymity in place of all names and actual places of participant employment verbalized during the interview question responses.
Supplementary data tables and interview transcriptions are included in the appendix section of this study. The concentrated framework for approaching each research question included both quantitative statistical data and qualitative supporting citations.
Research Question 1
How do working graduate students define civil and uncivil behavior in the workplace? As guidance to the working graduate students that participated in the graduate student workplace incivility survey, a printed definition of Andersson and
Pearson‘s (1999) workplace incivility described that, ―workplace incivility can be defined as low-intensity, deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm, the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others‖ (p. 457). Following the workplace definition of Andersson and Pearson (1999) question 1 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey asked working graduate students What is your definition of civil behavior in the workplace, and question 2 asked working graduate students What is your definition of uncivil behavior in the workplace. Open text boxes under questions one and two provided working graduate students a space to hand write responses. The researcher manually transposed all participants‘ handwritten answers into an Excel worksheet as a workable format for sorting and analysis and then grouped responses into categorical themes.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 77
Research Question 1 Survey Qualitative Results
A total of 376 (93%) working graduate student participants provided in writing their definition of civil behavior. Twenty-nine (7%) participants did not provide a response to question 1. In an effort to organize the large number of definition responses, the researcher grouped answers with similar explanation and descriptions. Thirty-four frequent reoccurring descriptive key words, as themes observed from the responses from the participants‘ definitions of civil behavior, are noted in Table 7.
Table 7
Graduate Student Workplace Incivility Survey Civil Definition Descriptive Key Words
Ability to get along with all employees Use of morals and values Act responsible No argumentative or foul language Being nice Non-judgmental Cooperative Non-hostile Considerate Pleasant Cordial Polite Courteous Professional Showing respect and being Credible respectful Ethical behavior Showing up on time Follow the rules/policies Supportive Friendly Tactful Follow the Golden Rule Act as a team player Good character Tolerant Being helpful Treating others as fair and equal Honesty Understanding Hospitable Use common sense Kindness
Note. Descriptives are not listed in order of frequency or rank.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 78
While some working graduate student participants elected to provide one word or short abbreviated definitions of civil behavior in the workplace such as ―Act your age‖,
―Ten commandments‖, ―Courtesy and respect for others‖, a number of responses included common wording of ―Treating others as you wish to be treated‖, or golden rule principles, ―Respect for all others, following the golden rule. If I wouldn't do it with
Mama in the room, I probably shouldn't do it.‖ Other participants chose to compose evocative detailed definitions with specific work related guidelines. One participant shared their definition of civil behavior in the workplace as, ―Following policy and procedures. Being professional and ethical. Adhering to rules and regulations. Being a dependable and responsible employee.‖ Another participant chose to define the definition as, ―Civil behavior in the workplace, to me, are the actions of an honest and harmonize work environment that allows each individual the same fair opportunities as all other employees--no special treatment.‖ Specific examples of employee communications including technology were incorporated in the definition by one working graduate student as, ―Civil behavior is treating fellow co-workers/employees respectfully. Being polite, courteous and respectful to everyone whether face-to-face, via email, or phone conversations.‖ Lastly, one working graduate student noted civil behavior in the workplace is defined as, ―Showing up on time with the intent to put full effort into your work while being respectful to your co-workers.‖
A total of 373 (92%) working graduate student participants provided in writing their definition of uncivil behavior. Thirty-two participants did not provide a response to question 2. The researcher used the same process as performed with responses from survey question 1 as with survey question 2. The researcher grouped the substantial
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 79
number of definition responses and made note of reoccurring words that appeared within
the participants‘ definitions. One hundred and eighteen repetitive descriptive key words
and behaviors as noted from the responses of the participants‘ definitions of uncivil
behavior are noted in Table 8.
Table 8
Graduate Student Workplace Incivility Survey Uncivil Definition Descriptive Key Words abuse of authority discourteous acting confrontational discrimination acting contrary to what is expected by your dishonesty employer acting defiant disobedient disregard for company acting disrespectful standards/rules/policies/procedures acting immature disrespect for job/resources acting obnoxious disruption verbal /non-verbal acting reckless dressing inappropriately acting selfish ethnic slurs/snide remarks expecting more than can be aggressive behavior produced aggressive tone favoritism answering personal calls at inappropriate fighting times arguing forming cliques arriving late to work/tardiness gossiping/grapevine attitudes in body language hanging up on someone back stabbing behaviors harassment behaving unprofessionally has a bad disposition being inattentive having outrages having to constantly watch your being loud back being not accountable hostile behavior being rude hurting others mentally / physically being sloppy ignoring deadlines/timelines being uncooperative ignoring/isolating/excluding others being unprepared inappropriate conversations boisterous behavior inappropriate gestures bullying behavior insubordinate
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 80 causing disruption insulting close mindedness intimidation complete disregard for others invasive behavior lack of care and respect for others deceitful behavior well being lack of concern and pride in one's degrading to others work demanding behaviors lack of integrity demeaning workers abilities/intelligence lack of morals deviant behavior lack of recognition for one's work diminishing one's values/beliefs lack of regard for others laziness showing bias make one feel uncomfortable slander making examples of someone in an open sleeping in meetings forum manipulative sociopathical towards others being mean spirited speaking out of turn mocking/making fun of co workers stealing company time name calling strategic oppression non ethical behavior talking behind others back not adhering to general workplace etiquette talking down to others not being a team player tattling not caring about consequences threatening behavior undermines one's not conducive to productivity accomplishments/goals not cooperating unkind not respecting the needs of others unresponsiveness not taking responsibility unruly behavior not treating others nice unwilling to hear one out not using the golden rule use of a patronizing manner not willing to help coworkers when they ask use of personal grudges for help obscene gestures using profanity being passive aggressive using sarcasm performing tasks half heartedly being verbally abusive plagiarizing one's work vindictive and malicious behavior polarization violating one's personal space raising voice/yelling at others violent behavior (verbal/non-verbal)
Note. Descriptives are not listed in order of frequency or rank.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 81
As observed within survey question 1, many working graduate students chose to use only a single word when asked to provide a definition of uncivil behavior. A few working graduate students provided short succinct definitions such as, ―Being a jerk‖, or ―Being rude, demanding, disruptive. Being a dick (when it is uncalled for).‖ The greater part of the participants provided a breadth of words pertaining to the work setting and its employees. One participant‘s response revealed uncivil behavior as, ―Any back-handed behavior which jeopardizes the work environment. Passive aggressive B.S.‖, another participate stated, ―Behavior that demonstrates lack of respect to some or all people at work, and is from people that have an ‗I‘ or ‗Me‘ mentality,‖ and a participant responded that uncivil behavior is , ―An intentional disruption posed by someone with the goal of avoiding tasks, disrupting others' activities, or circumventing the subject at hand. Has to be intentional, not by accident.‖ A handful of working graduate students specifically expressed awareness of harmful behaviors. ―People treating other people in a negative or non-positive way with the intent to harm or discourage another employee through verbal or physical means‖ shared one participant. Another participant wrote in his or her definition of uncivil behavior that, ―Bullying behaviors during meetings in an attempt to make the other person(s) feel less self- confident and therefore less likely to engage in meaningful dialogue. Rude talk, loud angry voice. Noisy, disrespectful of space and invading individuals‘ private space.‖ Some participants also included references with the use of technology and electronic communication as part of their definitions of uncivil behavior. A participant stated uncivil behavior is an, ―Unprofessional attitude, communication, actions in a workplace setting. Includes harassment at one end of the spectrum to things as minute as cell phone etiquette, interrupting someone who is
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 82
speaking, etc.,‖ and another participant notes uncivil behavior is, ―Rude, disrespectful
behavior. Use of e-Communications that leaves people feeling left out, unworthy.‖
Research Question 1 Interview Qualitative Results
Question 1 of the questionnaire asked interviewees What behaviors do you consider
to be uncivil in your workplace? The researcher asked each interviewee to verbally
define or describe what behaviors they consider to be uncivil in their workplace. Unlike
the graduate student workplace incivility survey, a printed definition of uncivil behavior
was not provided to the interviewees. Each interviewees‘ response was audio recorded in
which the researcher transcribed and germane content in support of question one can be
found in Table 9.
Table 9
Interview Responses on What Behaviors Do You Consider to be Uncivil in Your Workplace Interviewee Interviewee Response Physical confrontations, verbal banter, poor attitudes, not team GSTUDENT #1 players, do not want to participate in their job, acting surly.
People were getting paid for not working which was very uncivil I GSTUDENT #2 consider time stealing very uncivil, and also stealing peoples' lunches.
Loud language, speaking loud, profanity, conducting personal GSTUDENT #3 conversations.
Being late, yell at you, use curse words. Another incivility is people just don‘t know where personal ends and professional begins GSTUDENT #4 anymore. There‘s a lot of you know jokes that are more racial than anything else in my at least in my department and I‘ve seen people talk about anything and everything such as oh I went to the doctor...
Demeanor, effective usage of language, people using words inappropriately for their definition, Ebonics, lack of respect, snide GSTUDENT #5 remarks, body language (laying back in the chair they‘re not showing the respect), talking back.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 83
Sleeping with the manager, taking long lunch hours, arriving to work late, shoulder surfing other employees, tattling, implying / verbalizing GSTUDENT #6 threats, take a paper clip fold it out and clean her ears with it, using IM to talk about employees in the presence of the employee(s), special treatment over other employees.
Anything that makes somebody feel uncomfortable, sexist remarks, GSTUDENT #7 racist remarks, addressing other people like within earshot of someone who is not intended for the conversation.
Foul language, not washing your hands after you use the restroom, not responding back to emails, or responding back in the time when the allotted time, it gives you the impression in their mannerisms that they are better than you, don‘t acknowledge you (i.e. eye contact, greeting), steal ideas, uncivil for Senior Management to be asking lower employees to be taking cuts and all this other kind of stuff and doing GSTUDENT #8 other things when they themselves are not willing to do that. Incivility was in two places: one my manager not giving me immediate feedback, the other thing is unless there was some emergency for him to call me on the carpet I think he should have taken care of this with my boss. Retracting retiree health care.
Not being honest with me or telling me important things that I should GSTUDENT #9 know.
My manager taking two to three lunches a day. My manager printing GSTUDENT something and have me get it off the printer and bring it to her. My #10 manager ordering me to get her lunch. My manager throwing out little insults in conversation and then laugh.
GSTUDENT Vile language/cursing, rumor or grapevine, talking in different #11 languages, mocking.
To be on your cell phone and with the ear plugs in to implying the use of ear bugs to showing that you are busy/listening to music, slamming GSTUDENT items, having meticulous organization of work space. #12 Not speaking when walking into the room I think that‘s rude when you don‘t it‘s just makes the work place a better place a more conducive work place. GSTUDENT Differentiation between and delineation between administration and #13 normal patrolling, intimidation or harassment.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 84
Foul language, people who interrupt others, lack of respect in other words what I mean by that is, is that maybe someone who is has a little bit more clout and they treat someone who‘s maybe a little bit more lower down on the chain of command, they treat them as if they are a lesser person, gestures that assimilate foul language, lack of GSTUDENT teamwork, openly verbalizing your displeasure with another #14 department, sexual comments, and over-decorated/messiest cubicles. The cubicle environment it‘s kind of like a little neighborhood. You might keep your yard spotless and beautiful, but the yard next door is over-decorated like a china shop. There are a few cubes at my work that look like a gift shop and there is another one that I think is in the running for messiest cube in America.
GSTUDENT Loudness, fumigation, saying antagonistic things. #15 Spreading rumors about other people, management making negative GSTUDENT remarks, the tone that you use when you speak to people it should be #16 respectful and shouldn‘t be talking down to a person; shouldn't be condescending.
Calling upon another employee to come over to do the work that I do, spitting chewing tobacco all over, leaving the bathroom door open when it's in use by an employee, people not washing their hands after the bathroom or handling contaminants, implying sexual remarks, cursing, disrespectful talk, eating my food without asking for GSTUDENT permission first. #17 Oh back to the rude thing the I think whole lunch thing is such bullshit cause when people will you know go on about how they didn‘t get to eat this day cause they were so busy so when I go to get lunch for people but the days I‘m busy they don‘t do it that‘s really irritating to me.
Disputes beyond normal disagreements about bureaucratic issues, face to face challenges or physical confrontations. GSTUDENT The most uncivil behaviors that I note in my work place would #18 involve a law enforcement officer, communications officer, detective, even a member of the command staff ignoring another member of personnel.
Several of the responses from the interviewees mirrored exact wording to similar
definition participant replies from question 2 of the graduate student workplace incivility
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 85 survey. Surprisingly, some of the interviewees‘ responses provided additional tangible and intangible references of behaviors and examples not identified within the responses of the survey participants and not observed within literature findings referenced from chapter two of this study. One example of a behavior not found within the graduate student workplace incivility survey results shared by interviewee GSTUDENT#2 provided a precise illustration of uncivil behavior as, ―Stealing peoples‘ lunches.‖ Three references of poor/improper use of attention to personal hygiene were explained by
GSTUDENT#6, ―Take a paper clip fold it out and clean her ears with it,‖ both
GSTUDENT #8 and GSTUDENT#17 made reference to, ―Not washing your hands after you use the restroom/leaving the bathroom door open when in use‖, and GSTUDENT#17 said, ―Spitting chewing tobacco all over‖ is uncivil. GSTUDENT#14 provided precise detail of a few co-workers cubicle work spaces stating, ―There are a few cubes at my work that look like a gift shop, and there is another one I think is in the running for messiest cube in America.‖
Summary of Research Question 1
Participant data gathered from the responses of the graduate student workplace incivility survey provided a magnitude of qualitative definitions with specific source examples and replicating themes to support of addressing research question 1 and research question 2. Data findings show there is not a single straightforward definition to define what an individual deems as civil or uncivil behavior. The researcher observed through the analysis of the survey qualitative data and the interview qualitative data, the working graduate students‘ definitions of civil and uncivil behavior in the workplace show there were more similar themes than differences in themes identified.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 86
Research Question 2
To what extent do working graduate students perceive incivility as a growing problem in the workplace? Question 6 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey asked working graduate students Compared to previous years, do you believe workplace incivility is: on the rise, about the same as previous years, or on the decline.
Research Question 2 Quantitative Results
A total of 394 working graduate student participants answered survey question 6. To determine differences within gender, the use of descriptive statistics presented a comparative breakout between males and females beliefs towards incivility as a growing problem in the workplace. A total of eight participants did not provide a response to the question, and three participants had selected more than one response. The researcher discovered the three participants had selected more than two or more responses and decided to omit those responses to avoid duplication and distortion of data during the analysis process.
Of the 394 collected responses for survey question 6, a total of 182 (46%) participants felt that workplace incivility is on the rise. The breakout of gender showed that females
(n=128) 70.3% consider this to be more of an increasing problem than males (n=54)
29.7%. For the 164 (42%) participants who believed that workplace incivility is about the same as previous years, the gender ratio of female participants were (n=87) 53.0% and males (n=77) 47.0%. Lastly, a total of 48 (12%) participants shared they felt workplace incivility is on the decline. The gender comparison equated (n=25) 52.1% of the female working graduate students, and (n=23) 47.9% male working graduate students.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 87
A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, yielding a non-significant value of 0.167 (critical-value: 0.195). Null hypothesis # 1: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view that workplace incivility is unchanged when compared to previous years. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no significant relationship between gender and the view that workplace incivility is unchanged when compared to previous years a (see Table 10).
Table 10
Comparison of Gender Beliefs of Workplace Incivility in Previous Years
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.1674615 R Square 0.02804335 Standard Error 0.67377721 Observations 393
Further examination of workplace incivility as a growing problem, the researcher conducted descriptive statistics to view possible differences amongst the working graduate students‘ representation of the four generations. Of the generations that felt workplace incivility is on the rise (n=182) the number of Traditionalists (1925-1945) equaled (n=1) 0.5%, Baby Boomers (1946-1964) totaled to (n=25) 13.7%, Generation X
(1965-1980) had the largest number of responses with (n=81) 44.5%, and Generation Y
(1981-1999) summed (n=74) 40.7%. When asked if participants felt that workplace incivility is about the same as previous years, the number of Traditionalists (1925-1945) that responded were (n=1) 0.6%, Baby Boomers (1946-1964) equaled (n=24) 14.6%, and there was a very close margin between Generation X (1965-1980), (n=69) 42.1% and
Generation Y (1981-1999), (n=70) 42.7%. There were (n=0) of Traditionalists that
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 88 believed workplace incivility is on the decline, Baby Boomers (1946-1964) totaled
(n=15) 31.9%, Generation X (1965-1980) summed (n=20) 42.6%, and Generation Y
(1981-1999) equaled (n=12) 25.5%.
Null hypothesis # 2: There is no relationship between the generation of the research participant and the view that workplace incivility is unchanged when compared to previous years. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 11, yielded a value of .109 (critical-value: 0.195). This very weak relationship is not significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no significant relationship between generation and the view that workplace incivility is unchanged when compared to previous years.
Table 11
Comparison of Generation Beliefs of Workplace Incivility in Previous Years
Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.10947935 R Square 0.01198573 Standard Error 0.67932012 Observations 393
Research Question 2 Qualitative Results
Question 6 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey also asked participants
If you believe incivility is on the rise, would you provide an explanation why you believe this is the case. One hundred and thirty working graduate students provided additional explanation in the open text box provided. The researcher manually typed all hand written explanations supplied by the participants into an Excel spreadsheet for ease to sort and group by theme.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 89
Explanations provided by the participants referenced numerous external factors as beliefs as to why incivility in on the rise within the workplace. Several participants stated the current condition of the economy worsening is cause for employees to feel more stressed. Participants felt that employees are experiencing more incivility as a result of the increased feelings of stress due to fears of losing employment. Many participants specifically identified the younger generation as the problem of incivility escalating. One working graduate student wrote, ―Work ethics have changed in younger generations and continues to change. The environment and employee attitudes are becoming more informal and casual. There seems to be a lack of foundational knowledge with respect to appropriate business etiquette.‖ Additionally, one working graduate student wrote, ―I feel as though people today don't have the same values as our grandparents or parents‘ young people entering the workforce are job hoping rather than working their way up.‖
Quite a few responses refer to the presence of technology in the workplace as an enabler for incivility to flourish. A working graduate student conveyed, ―Organizations are constantly de-humanizing the workplace with increased technology. More focus is on revenue vs. the well- being of their employees‖. One participated observed, ―Technology use is becoming more mainstream / common place. Common workplace etiquette is disappearing.‖ Another participant wrote, ―Because of technology people have forgotten basic common sense and manners. They spend so much time at computers with no emotions they forget how to behave.‖
Falters within the role of management to take a more proactive approach towards handling and preventing occurrences of incivility are visible in a number of participant responses. ―Poor management has led to this. Management afraid to act on situations
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 90 because they are in fear of losing their job‖ and ―Because management is too busy to notice, and employees too scared to tell if others are being uncivil,‖ were two of the responses shared by working graduate students.
The last of the observed themes by the researcher focused on the changes within the work environment. ―Workers are upset and work conditions. Cut pay, shorter hours, etc.,‖ wrote one participant. ―I believe work environments are more relaxed which allows more room for uncivil behavior,‖ wrote another participant. Lastly, one participant disclosed,
―Smaller work spaces; more work, less individuals to perform the work. People become inwardly focused.‖
Research Question 2 Interview Qualitative Results
Question 11 of the questionnaire asked interviewees Do you believe that incivility is a problem in your workplace? If yes, please provide in detail. If no, please explain why you believe why not. Each working graduate student with the exception of GSTUDENT
#2 provided a verbal response which the researcher audio recorded the verbal responses from each interviewee and transcribed responses in the table below.
Table 12
Interview Responses On Beliefs That Incivility is a Problem in Their Workplace
Interviewee Interviewee Response I think we have the one incident but, I think it‘s minor. But as far as the overall picture, no. I mean I‘ve got 28 employees here the vast GSTUDENT #1 majority of them are very easy to work with and do a good job and are professional.
I think where I‘m at now no. My job is so different, I want to use the GSTUDENT #3 other place not this place. Let‘s see do I believe that incivility is a problem um I think it was there.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 91
I would generally say no like we have our incidents, but it‘s not the largest part of my day that I have to deal with or even it‘s not even GSTUDENT #4 the daily thing it might be maybe once a week, it might be once a month. So I wouldn‘t say it‘s a big problem.
I think it‘s a problem. I don‘t think it‘s necessarily as huge of a problem because my workplace is extremely metric driven so it‘s all GSTUDENT #5 about performance. But definitely think it‘s a problem because of the negativity that it can spawn.
GSTUDENT #6 It is an everyday problem.
I think it has been pretty consistent. I mean it‘s not, well it could be a growing problem because you know every year we‘re allowed to GSTUDENT #7 have more employees so we‘ll have a bigger staff, but our building is still the same size all the our work spaces are still small, but we have more and more people.
I mean there‘s incidents of incivility would I say it‘s a problem? I GSTUDENT #8 would probably say no. I would, well just starting in my immediate workplace no; I don‘t think it is a problem.
GSTUDENT #9 It‘s a growing problem. And it‘s it goes beyond incivility.
I think it‘s getting better in my workplace only in the sense that our GSTUDENT #10 old boss is gone and we have sort of a level playing field.
In my current workplace I don‘t have one so no. I will have to say do GSTUDENT #11 I believe that in places in the past I will say I will have to say yes to all of them. Each of them has their different ways of incivility.
I think incivility is in every work place. I don‘t think any work place GSTUDENT #12 is perfect without incivility. I think it‘s just the level of incivility. Yes, there is incivility in my work place even now.
I guess it‘s based on subjectivity and perception. I don‘t think incivility in a Workplace ABC is probably as big as maybe in GSTUDENT #13 Workplace XYZ or someplace like that. It depends on the, I guess it depends on the agency you go to.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 92
I would say in pockets it is. I would say if I had to stand back and GSTUDENT #14 look at the company as a whole, I would say no.
I don‘t think it is. It is the nature of the beast for us. I mean we‘re GSTUDENT #15 used it to so if somebody is out of line it‘s kind of what we do.
I am going to say yes. I think not to say that it is something I see frequently, but I know it exists because of the people who work GSTUDENT #16 there. I would say yes as it is a perpetual problem. Cause it‘s rarely addressed unless you process the lines of harassment.
Yes. See detail above. It will continue to be until everybody can just GSTUDENT #17 come to work and do their job. Do their job correctly those that are not doing it are disciplined for not doing it.
Incivility is not necessarily a problem in my workplace. For the GSTUDENT #18 most part our personnel get along real well and truly care about the feelings of their peers.
In alignment of the survey quantitative responses, the greater part of the interviewees responded with the belief that incivility is a problem in their workplace.
The researcher did not find any of the responses to directly correlate to the themes derived from the qualitative survey responses, yet many of the interviewees provided detail regarding the frequency in which incivility occurs in the workplace.
GSTUDENT#14 views incivility as a problem that occurs in ―pockets,‖ while
GSTUDENT#6 stated incivility is an ―Everyday problem.‖
Summary of Research Question 2
Quantitative data gathered from the responses of the graduate student workplace incivility survey showed that 46% of the working graduate students noted that incivility is on the rise which is higher than the 42% of the participants that reported they believed workplace incivility is about the same as previous years. The qualitative survey responses
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 93 provided insight of many themed root cause areas in which workplace incivility is viewed as problematic. Interview qualitative responses findings showed the majority of interviewees perceive that incivility in the workplace is a problem. The researcher observed from the interview responses the occurrence of incivility in the workplace ranges from infrequent random incidences to daily outbreaks.
The null hypothesis concerning difference in gender perceptions was not rejected for research question two. Findings in table nine presented no strong relationship within the gender of the research participants and there was belief that there is a rise of incivility in the workplace. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 10, yielded a value of .167 (α = 0.05; critical = .190). Again, the statistical findings showed this to be a very weak relationship that was not significant between either of the two genders and belief that incivility is on the rise in the participant‘s workplace.
There was not a visible relationship among each of the four generations of the research participants and the view that there is workplace incivility is unchanged when compared to previous years. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 11, yielded a value of .109. This very weak relationship is not significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no significant relationship among the four generations and the view that workplace incivility is unchanged when compared to previous years.
Research Question 3
In what ways do working graduate students relate incivility in their workplace to job satisfaction? Question 12 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey asked
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 94 working graduate students to Please indicate how incivility in the workplace relates to employee job satisfaction. Survey response included five Likert selections: strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, and strongly agree. The complete number of participants that answered survey question 12 equaled 397. Seven participants did not mark a selection to question 12, and one participant had selected more than one response selection which the researcher discarded from the data pool.
Research Question 3 Quantitative Results
Of the 140 (35%) participants that stated they strongly agree that incivility relates to employee job satisfaction (n=94), 67.1% were female, and (n=46) 32.9% were male.
Of the 168 (43%) participants that said they agreed that incivility relates to employee job satisfaction, (n=92) 54.8% were female, and (n=76) 45.2% were male. The 36 (9%) participants that said they neither agreed nor disagreed incivility relates to employee job satisfaction, totaled (n=22) 61.1% females, and (n=14) 38.9% females. The nine (2%) participants that said they disagreed incivility relates to employee job satisfaction are inclusive of (n=4) 44.4% females and (n=5) 55.6% males, and 44 (11%) participants
(n=31) 70.5% females and (n=13) 29.5% males said they strongly disagreed that incivility relates to employee job satisfaction.
Null hypothesis # 3: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the perception of the level to which incivility in the workplace affects job satisfaction. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 12, yielded a value of .001 (α = 0.05; critical = .195), which indicated no relationship. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no relationship between
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 95 gender and the perception of the level to which incivility in the workplace affects job satisfaction.
Table 13
Gender Indications of How Incivility in the Workplace Relates to Employee Job Satisfaction
Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.00117453 R Square 1.3795E-06 Standard Error 1.22819044 Observations 396
The generation segment of data for survey question 12 showed that 140 participants selected ―strongly agree‖ as indicating how incivility relates to job satisfaction. Zero Traditionalists (1925-1945) participants selected the strongly agree response. The total number of Baby Boomers (1946-1964) equated (n=27) 19.3%.
Generation X (1965-1980) (n=54) 38.6% and slightly higher was Generation Y (1981-
1999) (n=59) 41.0%. One Traditionalist (1925-1945) working graduate student (n=1)
0.6% selected agree. Baby Boomers (1946-1964) amounted to (n=24) 14.3%. There was an equal number of participant responses between Generation X (1965-1980) (n=71)
42.3% and Generation Y (1981-1999) (n=71) 42.3%. There were no selections made for the response neither agree nor disagree by the Traditionalists (1925-1945) (n=0) participants. A slight number of selections by the Baby Boomers (1946-1964) summed as
(n=4) 11.1%. Generation X (1965-1980) participants totaled (n=18) 50.0% and
Generation Y (1981-1999) participants amounted (n=14) 38.9%. Single digit totals for each of the generations were found for the response selection of disagree. None of the
Traditionalists (1925-1945) chose disagrees. One Baby Boomers (1946-1964) (n=1)
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 96
11.1% selected disagree. Three Generation X (1965-1980) (n=3) 33.3% said they disagree and five Generation X (1981-1999) (n=5) 55.6% participants picked disagree as their selection. Only three of the four generation participants selected strongly disagree.
Traditionalists (1925-1945) participants (n=0) did not select strongly disagree. Baby
Boomers (1946-1964) participants totaled (n=8) 18.6%. Generation X (1965-1980) summed (n=25) 58.1% and Generation Y (1981-1999) amounted (n=10) 23.3%.
Null hypothesis # 4: There is no relationship between the generation of the research participant and the perception of the level to which incivility in the workplace affects job satisfaction. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 13 yielded a value of .051 (α = 0.05; critical = .195).
This very weak relationship is not significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no significant relationship between generation and the perception of the level to which incivility in the workplace affects job satisfaction.
Table 14
Generation Indications of How Incivility in the Workplace Relates to Employee Job Satisfaction Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.05181601 R Square 0.0026849 Standard Error 1.22654139 Observations 396
Research Question 3 Interview Qualitative Results
Question 7 of the questionnaire asked interviewees Have you changed jobs or quit due to incivility? If yes, please describe. All interviewees provided a verbal response to
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 97 the question except for GSTUDENT #2. The researcher transposed the recorded responses. See Table 15.
Table 15
Interview Responses of Job Change Due to Incivility Interviewee Interviewee Response No, probably wanted to at times but no I never I mean you know you‘ve been in places where people just can‘t get along and doesn‘t GSTUDENT #1 make for a good work environment but I have never had to quit or leave a job for that.
No, um I don‘t know maybe. I told my boss at the time I said as GSTUDENT #3 soon as I find something I‘m out.
GSTUDENT #4 I haven‘t.
No, I wouldn‘t say it‘s due to incivility. I‘ve only quit jobs due to either better job with better pay or you know just not really caring for the job. My last job and I guess it could you might have to stretch it, GSTUDENT #5 but it could be wrapped up into incivility. I‘m like you know what you can shove it up your ass and I‘m going to go somewhere else. So I think that could be incivility. Expecting people to work all the time.
I just think yeah this one was, but I think a general statement would be that my job was quality assurance what I was reporting back to them there was nothing being done about it. They took it as a personal attack and my job was just obsolete though it was really GSTUDENT #6 pointless for me to be there because nothing was getting accomplished. So I give them positive feedback and they took it as personal attacks and their management encouraged she is against you, you know.
GSTUDENT #7 No, I haven‘t.
Yes, I did. That was at that place I was just telling you about. I didn‘t quit company but I did move to a different job within the company. The primary reason I left was because of that because I felt like I was GSTUDENT #8 in a war, it wasn‘t good for my health anymore, so I moved into another department I moved into the office out of the plant environment. I wasn‘t getting the support I needed and I couldn‘t cope with it.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 98
Yes. Right after I retired from Workplace ABC and before my Workplace XYZ days I worked for the local broker insurance broker and I was hired to be in charge of training and compliance. And every time I had a compliance meeting he would not give me any GSTUDENT #9 kind of support he would make what I thought was very important he would make it lesser concern about it and tell the staff just go ahead and do your stuff. And he was not truthful a lot of complaints from clients that although I would take care of them and get settlements to keep him out of court he fought me just about every step of the way.
It wasn‘t necessarily incivility like this is only my third job that I have worked in my entire life and I‘ve put up with a lot because I‘m like you don‘t really have another avenue. I wouldn‘t consider it GSTUDENT #10 incivility because it was just kind of the I want to say culture but it‘s not really culture um I guess the corporate atmosphere that I was in. That‘s how I would describe it.
Yes, absolutely. Well the first one was with the doctor‘s office you GSTUDENT #11 know I always say that I left there for benefits because he also gave no benefits, but that was part of the incivility.
Yes, I left because of and my supervisor she was not a very GSTUDENT #12 understanding person.
GSTUDENT #13 No.
No. I can honestly tell that I do not want to move back downstairs with my department, because of incivility. So although I have changed jobs I know that I don‘t want to go back to something that GSTUDENT #14 was uncivil before. And I feel strongly enough about that. And now I am back with a different crowd again who don‘t have to use the f word to get their point across and I like it. So that would be my answer to number 7.
I left this job in ‘04 and it was politics when I left and it was a type of thing where the employee was related to one of the employees, and he got him a job there, then he became a crooked employee but I tried to make him accountable for things then I was told if I didn‘t leave him alone that I was going to lose my job and so then he was GSTUDENT #15 going to have three employees fired because he just didn‘t hang out with them anymore so it was as simple as that and then I fought for their jobs and then I wound up having to pack my stuff and that was in ‘04 that was after 20 years. So at that time it was kind of uncivil I guess.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 99
I did well not necessarily rude behavior but just the hitting the ceiling for broke. Yes, the same scuttlebutt with the you know GSTUDENT #16 talking about employees. It‘s really like a malignancy that spreads throughout one company to the next.
GSTUDENT #17 No, cause I need a job.
GSTUDENT #18 No.
Of the 17 interviewees‘ responses, nine participants clearly responded that they did not change or quit a job due to incivility. The composite of the other participant responses either evidently stated that they did change or quit a job due to incivility, or that incivility partially contributed towards seeking a new position. A few of the working graduate students shared supporting detail as to why they have not changed or quit jobs.
Maintaining employment regardless of incivility was a concern for GSTUDENT#17 who disclosed, ―No, cause I need a job.‖ Another working graduate student spoke of the desire to not return to a previous job where incivility was present. GSTUDENT#14,‖I can honestly tell you that I do not want to move back downstairs with my department because of incivility.‖
A recurring theme among three of the working graduate students was a lack of support that was not visible within their previous job occupation. One working graduate student disclosed multiple factors that contributed toward moving to a new job.
GSTUDENT#8 who shared, ―The primary reason I left was because I felt like I was in a war, it wasn‘t good for my health. I wasn‘t getting the support I needed and I couldn‘t cope with it.‖ GSTUDENT# 12 noted, ―I left because of my supervisor. She was not a very understanding person,‖ and GSTUDENT#9 said, ―Every time I had a compliance
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 100 meeting he would not give me any kind of support he would make what I thought was very important less of a concern.‖
Summary of Research Question 3
The quantitative data responses from question 12 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey show the greater part of working graduate students either strongly agree
35% or agree 43% relate incivility to job satisfaction. Regression analysis and ANOVA testing supported statistical differences among gender and generation towards incivility relating to job satisfaction. The qualitative responses from question 7 of the working graduate student interview revealed most of the participants have not changed jobs or quit a job as a result of workplace incivility. The researcher detected a lack of support as common themed response from some of the interviewees that have changed or quit a job due to incivility.
There was no relationship between the genders of the research participants and the level to which incivility in the workplace affects job satisfaction. A Pearson Product
Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 13, yielded a value of .001 (α = 0.05; critical = .195). This computation indicated there is no strong relationship. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there was no relationship between gender and belief that incivility exists in the participant‘s workplace.
A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in
Table 14, yielded a value of .051 (α = 0.05; critical = .195). This relationship viewed as very weak was not of significance. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there was no considerable relationship among the four generations and a belief that incivility exists in the participants‘ workplace.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 101
Research Question 4
In what ways do working graduate students perceive incivility as related to their productivity in their workplace? Question 13 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey asked working graduate students to please indicate how likely incivility is related to productivity of employees and their workplace? Response selections included: strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, and strongly agree .397 working graduate students provided a response selection to survey question 13. Eight working graduate students did not make a selection to answer the question.
Research Question 4 Quantitative Results
One hundred and fifty-eight (40%) of the participants strongly agree that incivility is related to productivity of employees and their workplace. A slightly higher percentage
(41%) 162 participants selected agree as their response. Thirty-four (9%) of the participants said they neither agreed or disagreed. Six (1%) of the participants disagreed, and 37 (9%) chose strongly disagree. Descriptive statistics of gender comparison showed more female participants (n=25) than 67.6% and male participants (n=12) 32.4% said that they strongly disagreed incivility is related to productivity and their workplace. A small marginal difference between the female (n=2) 33.3% and male (n=4) 66.7% participants was visible for the total number of responses for selection of disagree. A slightly greater number of female participants (n=19) 55.9% than male participants (n=15) 44.1% said they neither agreed or disagreed incivility is related to productivity and their workplace.
More female participants (n=90) 55.6% than male participants (n=72) 44.4% agree incivility is related to productivity in their workplace and a significant amount of the
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 102 female participants (n=105) 66.5% selected strongly agree as their response selection than the male participants (n=53) 39.0%.
Null hypothesis # 5: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view of the level to which incivility affects productivity of employees in the workplace. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 16, yielded a value of .033 (α = 0.05; critical = .195). This very weak relationship was not significant. So, the null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no significant relationship between gender and the view of the level to which incivility affects productivity of employees in the workplace.
Table 16
Gender Indications of Incivility Related to Productivity of Employees and Their Workplace
Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.03352935 R Square 0.00112422 Standard Error 1.17000647 Observations 396
Analysis of the data from survey question 13 from a generational viewpoint revealed none of the participants that are pooled as Traditionalists (1925-1945) selected strongly disagree that incivility is related to productivity and their workplace. A small number of participants (n=6) 16.7% who are Baby Boomers (1946-1964) chose strongly disagree.
The Generation X (1965-1980) participants (n=22) 61.1% generated the most responses for strongly disagree, and Generation Y (1981-1999) participants totaled (n=8) 22.2%.
The number of responses from Traditionalist (1925-1945) participants concurrent from the outcome of strongly disagree responses were zero for the disagree response selection.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 103
Synonymous for the Baby Boomers (1946-1964) participants; no one selected disagree.
A few Generation X (1965-1980) participants (n=4) 66.7% picked disagree, and even fewer Generation Y (1981-1999) participants (n=2) 33.3% chose disagree. Again there were no selection made for the neither agree nor disagree response from Traditionalist
(1925-1945) participants. A few Baby Boomers (1946-1964) participants (n=2) 5.9% marked neither agree nor disagree response. Generation X (1965-1981) participants
(n=15) 44.1% selections for neither agree nor disagree were slightly lower than the total number of responses from the Generation Y (1981-1999) participants (n=17) 50.0%. The summation of participants that marked agree equaled one Traditionalist (1925-1945) participant (n=1) 0.6%, Baby Boomers (1946-1964) (n=29) 17.9%, Generation X (1965-
1980) (n=68) 42.0%, and Generation Y (1981-1999) (n=63) 38.9%. Nearly as many participants from three generations chose the strongly agree selection. No responses were submitted by the Traditionalists (1925-1945). Baby Boomers (1946-1964) participants totaled (n=27) 17.1%. Generations X (1965-1980) participants summed
(n=61) 38.6% and Generation Y (1981-1999) participants amounted (n=70) 44.3%.
Null hypothesis # 6: There is no relationship between the generation of the research participant and the view of the level to which incivility affects productivity of employees in the workplace. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 17, yielded a value of .050 (α = 0.05; critical = .195). This very weak relationship was not significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no significant relationship between generation and the view of the level to which incivility affects productivity of employees in the workplace.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 104
Table 17
Generation Indications of Incivility Related to Productivity of Employees and Their Workplace
Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.05015911 R Square 0.00251594 Standard Error 1.16919111 Observations 396
Summary of Research Question 4
The use of quantitative data supported research question 4. There was no qualitative used in the analysis. Question 13 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey data findings illustrated a sizeable number of the working graduate students answering strongly agree 39% or agree 40% as indication of how incivility in the workplace relates to employee job satisfaction.
There was not a visible relationship between the genders of the research participants and the perceived view that workplace incivility relates to productivity of employees and their workplace. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 16, yielded a value of .033. This very weak relationship was not significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there was no significant relationship between the genders of the research participants and the perceived view that workplace incivility relates to productivity of employees and their workplace.
There was not an observable relationship between the generations of the research participants and the perceived view that workplace incivility related to productivity of employees and their workplace. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 17, yielded a value of .050. This very weak relationship
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 105 was not significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there was no significant relationship between the generations of the research participants and the perceived view that workplace incivility relates to productivity of employees and their workplace.
Research Question 5
How do working graduate students perceive their effectiveness in prevention and response to workplace incivility? Two questions from the Graduate Student Workplace
Incivility Survey provided quantitative data to support analysis testing. Question 7 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey asked working graduate students How much training have you had in learning how to deal with workplace incivility? Response selections included: ample training, some training, a little training, and no training.
Question 8 asked working graduate students How prepared do you feel you are in dealing with workplace incivility? Participants selected one of the four Likert response selections: very prepared, somewhat prepared, a little prepared, and not prepared at all.
Research Question 5 Quantitative Results
Quantitative data for question seven revealed a total of 400 working graduate students answered question 7 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey. Four participants did not mark any of the four response selections and one participant marked more than one response selection which was removed from the data pool by the researcher. Sixty-six (16%) of the participants shared that they have had ample training in learning how to deal with workplace incivility. The majority of working graduate students 137 (34%) answered that they have had some training. One hundred and two
(26%) of the working graduate students shared they have had a little training, and 95
(24%) stated they have had no training.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 106
The gender variable breakout of responses for survey question seven showed (n=31)
47.0% of female participants answered that they have had ample training whereas the male participants answered slightly higher (n=35) 53.0%. A greater number of both female (n=82) 59.9% and male participants (n=55) 40.1% selected that they have had some training. The researcher observed there was a small margin of difference in the totals for the female (n=65) 63.0% and male participants (n=37) 36.3% who said they had a little training verses the female (n=64) 67.4% and male participants (n=31) 32.6% that said they have had no training.
Null hypothesis # 7: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view of the training to learn how to deal with incivility in the workplace. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table18, yielded a value of .126 (α = 0.05; critical = .195). This weak relationship was not significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no significant relationship between gender and the view of the training to learn how to deal with incivility in the workplace.
Table 18
Gender Indications of Training to Learn How to Deal with Workplace Incivility
Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.1260707 R Square 0.01589382 Standard Error 1.01944618 Observations 400
The generation variable responses showed zero of the Traditionalist (1925-1945) participants stated that they have had ample training to deal with workplace incivility.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 107
Baby Boomers (1946-1964) participants (n=16) 24.2% had the least number of responses for ample training. Generation X (1965-1980) participants (n=32) 48.5% had the most responses for ample training and Generation Y (1981-1999) participants (n=18) 27.3% had the second most responses for ample training. One Traditionalist (1925-1945) participant selected the response of some training to deal with workplace incivility. The total number of Baby Boomers (1946-1964) participants that chose some training equaled
(n=24) 17.5%. Generation X (1965-1981) participants and the number of Generation Y
(1981-1999) participants were (n=48) 35.0%. None of the Traditionalist (1925-1945) participants stated having had a little training to deal with workplace incivility. Baby
Boomers (1946-1964) participants (n=11) 10.9% said they had a little training.
Generation X (1965-1980) participants (n=38) 37.6% noted they have had a little training and Generation Y (1981-1999) participants (n=52) 51.5% marked the response a little training. A sizeable number of participants stated that they have had no training to deal with workplace incivility. A Traditionalist (1925-1945) participant (n=1) 1.1% selected none as their response to question seven. Baby Boomers (1946-1964) participants that selected none totaled (n=12) 12.6%. Generation X (1965-1980) participants responses equaled (n=39) 41.1% and Generation Y (1981-1999) participants that marked none were
(n=42) 44.2%.
Null hypothesis # 8: There is no relationship between the generations of the research participant and the view of the training to learn how to deal with incivility in the workplace. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 19, yielded a value of .156 (α = 0.05; critical = .195). This weak relationship was not significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 108 significant relationship between generations and the view of the training to learn how to deal with incivility in the workplace.
Table 19
Generation Indications of Training to Learn How to Deal with Workplace Incivility
Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.15663696 R Square 0.02453514 Standard Error 1.0149605 Observations 400
The results of survey question 8 show that (n=400) working graduate students selected one of the four provided responses. Ninety-eight (24%) of the participants felt that they are very prepared in dealing with workplace incivility. More than half of the participants (n=207) (52%) feel they are somewhat prepared in dealing with workplace incivility. Seventy-six participants (19%) said they are a little prepared, and (n=19) (5%) feel they are not prepared at all in dealing with workplace incivility. Four working graduate students did not provide an answer selection to question eight and one working graduate student chose more than one response which the research left out of the data summary.
An almost equal number of responses for question 8 showed that the female participants (n=48) 49.0% and male participants (n=50) 51.0% felt very prepared in dealing with workplace incivility. The greatest number of response for question 8 showed that (n=130) 62.8% of female participants and (n=77) 37.2% of male participants felt somewhat prepared in dealing with workplace incivility. A lesser number of female participants (n=50) 65.8% and male participants (n=26) 34.2% felt a little prepared in
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 109 dealing with workplace incivility. Lastly, the fewer number of responses amounted from female participants (n=14) 73.7% and male participants (n=19) 4.7% that felt they are not at all prepared in dealing with workplace incivility.
Null hypothesis # 9: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the perception of the preparedness to deal with incivility in the workplace.
A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table
20, yielded a value ofα = 0.05; critical = .195). This weak relationship was not significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no significant relationship between gender and the perception of the preparedness to deal with incivility in the workplace.
Table 20
Gender Indications of Preparedness in Dealing with Workplace Incivility
Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.13468521 R Square 0.01814011 Standard Error 0.78360393 Observations 399
Examination of the total number of responses by generation showed zero responses from Traditionalist (1925-1945) participants for the very prepared response selection.
The number of responses from Baby Boomers (1946-1964) participants were (n=17)
17.5%. Generation X (1965-1980) participants (n=51) 52.6% yielded the greatest number of total responses marked for very prepared, and Generation Y (1981-1999) participant responses summed (n=29) 29.9%. For the somewhat prepared response, two
Traditionalist (1925-1945) participants (n=2) 1.0% said they felt somewhat prepared in
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 110 dealing with workplace incivility. The total of Baby Boomers (1945-1964) participants that marked somewhat prepared was (n=36) 17.4%. A significant number of Generation
X (1965-1980) participants (n=91) 44.0% said they felt somewhat prepared, and a substantial number of Generation Y (1981-1999) participants (n=78) 37.7% also selected the somewhat prepared response. None of the Traditionalist (1925-1945) participants stated that they felt a little prepared in dealing with workplace incivility. Eight Baby
Boomers (1946-1964) participants (n=8) 10.5% said they felt a little prepared. The number of Generation X (1965-1980) participants (n=25) 32.9% said they felt a little prepared and a greater number of Generation Y (1981-1999) participants, (n=43) 56.6%, said they felt a little prepared in dealing with workplace incivility. The number of
Traditionalist (1925-1945) participants that marked the response selection not at all was zero. A few Baby Boomers (1946-1964) participants (n=3) 15.8% stated that they felt not at all prepared in dealing with workplace incivility. A slightly higher number of
Generation X (1965-1980) participants (n=5) 26.3% participants said they did not feel at all prepared and the Generation Y (1981-1999) participants, (n=10) 52.6%, doubled the total number of responses provided by the Generation X participants.
Null hypothesis # 10: There is no relationship between the generations of the research participant and the perception of the preparedness to deal with incivility in the workplace.
A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table
21, yielded a value of .167 (α = 0.05; critical = .195). This weak relationship was not significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no significant relationship between generations and the perception of the preparedness to deal with incivility in the workplace.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 111
Table 21
Generation Indications of Preparedness in Dealing with Workplace Incivility
Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.16728598 R Square 0.0279846 Standard Error 0.77966568 Observations 399
Research Question 5 Qualitative Results
Research Question 5 Interview Qualitative Results Question 13 of the questionnaire asked interviewees What are you doing about addressing rude behavior and incivility in your work place? All interview participants provided a response to the question with the exception of GSTUDENT #2 who did not provide a specific response to support the question. The researcher transposed each interviewee‘s response into the table below.
Table 22
Interview Responses of Addressing Rude Behavior and Incivility in the Workplace
Interviewee Interviewee Response We make it a regular part of the evaluation process in our office meetings. We address just you know rude jokes etcetera that is GSTUDENT #1 brought up and it is part of mandate through headquarters that we won‘t tolerate.
Unfortunately I shut my door which it doesn‘t help. I had to buy GSTUDENT #3 earphones. I listen to music to block people out but if it gets bad enough I do tell people
Other than when I just can‘t take it anymore like with employee, that I took it to my management otherwise I just ignore it at this GSTUDENT #4 point. And that‘s generally how I deal with just about anything I wait until I just can‘t wait anymore and then I take it to whoever I
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 112
need to take it to at that point.
I think the biggest thing is lead by example. So it‘s just kind of leading by example it‘s leading by having professional conduct. It‘s the professional conduct between me and him it kind of sets the tone and what we‘ve seen and I think what I‘ve seen at least GSTUDENT #5 it‘s not proven or tested or anything, but the people around me that sit around us are much more well behaved and work a lot harder because they know we‘ll jump on their ass even though we‘re not their manager you know what I mean.
I mean at the time I wasn‘t doing anything. I was noting, I was GSTUDENT #6 writing it down in a notebook just documenting everything.
I don‘t really address it, I just, if I am uncomfortable I just leave GSTUDENT #7 the room.
I know one this is that I try to watch myself as much as possible. You saw when I blew my nose there a couple of times I Germ X‘ed © not only for myself but also if you and I were to shake GSTUDENT #8 hands or something. Just watching how I you know make sure I am not rude to somebody. Try to you know handle things as professional as I can I mean so it‘s just trying to treat people the way I would want to be treated.
Well I‘m not afraid to bring it to someone‘s attention. I try to be GSTUDENT #9 proactive about it you know I say do you realize what you said, do you realize you know you‘re not applying the golden rule.
I try to provide areas of improvement. You know but then again I don‘t really say anything because I‘m GSTUDENT like what if I am having a bad day, or what if they‘re having a #10 bad day. And a lot of times especially in our office it‘s just easier to let it go and tomorrow it will be different.
Well currently nothing, but well I do tell people, even with this last guy I worked with he sat there and he had other words to put GSTUDENT it but I said you know what I‘m a big girl and if you have an #11 issue come to me and we‘ll talk about it. And the other way I address rude behavior is, I kind of have my big girl suit but it has a Southern side to it.
GSTUDENT I am indifferent. I deal with it on my personal level and I‘m not a #12 tattle tale. I mean I‘m not saying that‘s good or bad but I‘m
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 113
indifferent.
I‘m promoting that shit. Sorry. Uh I don‘t encourage it as much as I used to. I used to be a very active participant. GSTUDENT You know so it‘s one of those things that I do try to promote less #13 of it when, when it does occur, however, it‘s basically for my position rather than you know my own personal feelings on it.
Um earplugs. I always make sure that if I am going to have a conversation with more than two or three people that I always try GSTUDENT and find a place to go or I try to be aware of my neighbors. I‘ve #14 voiced my own opinion about the foul language with the people I work with
What I usually tell the employees are if you can‘t handle it GSTUDENT between each other like people, or men, or whatever, and you #15 want me to get involved I‘ll get involved but you won‘t like the outcome of it.
If I could apply I would address it. GSTUDENT So I don‘t feed into that kind of behaviors so it will not just #16 manifest and continue to grow into this you know this monster of a person.
I guess I‘m learning to just let it go more often. Taking people off Facebook™. Quit gossip. I never said anything ‗til our final review and he said do you have anything for me as a manager and it was basically like yeah I‘m GSTUDENT tired of the shit. I‘m tired of being treated like this so I finally got #17 it off so we have more of like a business like relationship. So that‘s kind of how we‘ve addressed the rude behavior, but um just not, not talking to people at work I mean keeping business to myself.
I emphasize to my personnel that if they have a conflict with someone to address the issue with that person directly and to do so as soon as the issue can peacefully addressed. It‘s also express that if they can‘t resolve the issue themselves that I am available to sit down with both or all parties involved to address a peaceful GSTUDENT resolution to the conflict. #18 I try to lead by example. When realizing that there is a problem, I address the situation with the employee immediately and see if I can be of any assistance. I have reminded them of my expectations and the necessity to resolve the situation appropriately.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 114
Qualitative responses from the interview participants provided insight and explanation as to how each interviewee elects to address, or not address incivility when it occurs within their workplace. One theme that the researcher observed from the responses of several participants focused upon using a reactive approach to address the uncivil behavior. GSTUDENT#1 noted use of a reactive approach sharing, ―We address it.‖ GSTUDENT#4 stated, ―I took it to my management.‖ Another common theme of several participants was to use a proactive approach to address workplace incivility in a preventative manner. GSTUDENT#5 said, ―Leading by example, it‘s leading by having a professional conduct.‖ GSTUDENT#18 shared a similar response, ―I try to lead by example. When realizing there is a problem, I address the situation with the employee immediately and see if I can be of any assistance.‖ GSTUDENT#9 also shared a direct approach toward dealing with instances of incivility. ―I try to be proactive about it you know I say do you realize what you said, do you realize you know you‘re not applying the golden rule.‖ GSTUDENT #8 response supports the response of GSTUDENT#5 and
GSTUDENT#9 by stating, ―Make sure I am not rude to somebody, handle things as professional as I can I mean so it‘s just trying to treat people the way I would want to be treated.‖ A number of interview responses exposed an internal silent approach of dealing with workplace incivility. GSTUDENT#4 sometimes takes a nonchalant approach stating, ―I just ignore it,‖ while GSTUDENT#17 said, ―I guess I‘m learning to just let it go more often.‖ GSTUDENT#7 shares this approach asserting, ―I don‘t really address it,
I just, if I am uncomfortable I just leave the room.‖ GSTUDENT#10 shared, ―A lot of times especially in our office it‘s just easier to let it go and tomorrow it will be different.‖
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 115
GSTUDENT#12 said, ―I am indifferent. I deal with it on my personal level and I am not a tattle tale.‖ The final theme observed by the researcher from the responses concentrated on the need for employees to cover their ears as a buffer to filter out workplace incivility. GSTUDENT#3 confessed, ―I had to buy earphones. I listen to music to block people,‖ and likewise GSTUDENT#14 simply stated, ―Um earplugs.‖
Summary of Research Question 5
Quantitative data from the graduate student survey question 7 exhibited a generous number of working graduate students 34% as having had some training in learning how to deal with workplace incivility, while 24% of the participants responded as having had no training. Regardless of the amount of training, quantitative data from question 8 revealed the vast majority of the working graduate students, 51%, feel somewhat prepared in dealing with workplace incivility followed by the second largest percentage of participants, 24%, that feel very prepared. Correlations between the gender variable and generation variable did not present strong similarities or differences among the groups.
Quantitative data from question 7 revealed there was not a visible relationship between the genders of the research participants and the amount of training received to deal with workplace incivility. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 18, yielded a value of .126. This very weak relationship was not significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no significant relationship between the genders of the research participants and the amount of training received to deal with workplace incivility.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 116
Quantitative data from question 7 revealed there was not a visible relationship among the four generations of the research participants and the amount of training received to deal with workplace incivility. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 19, yielded a value of .156. This weak relationship was not significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no significant relationship among the four generations of the research participants and the amount of training received to deal with workplace incivility.
Quantitative data from question 8 revealed there was not a visible relationship between the genders of the research participants and the amount of preparedness in dealing with workplace incivility. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 20, yielded a value of .134. This very weak relationship was not significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no significant relationship between the genders of the research participants and the amount of preparedness in dealing with workplace incivility.
Quantitative data from question 8 revealed there was not a visible relationship among the four generations of the research participants and the amount of preparedness in dealing with workplace incivility. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 21, yielded a value of .167. This weak relationship was not significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no significant relationship among the four generations of the research participants and the amount of preparedness in dealing with workplace incivility.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 117
Research Question 6
How do working graduate students perceive their employers effectiveness in prevention and response to workplace incivility? The quantitative data from questions 9 and 10 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey jointly supported this research question. Question 9 of the survey asked working graduate students Does your employer have a comprehensive policy addressing workplace incivility? The three response selections were: yes, no, or unsure. Question 10 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey asked working graduate students If your employer has a comprehensive incivility policy, how EFFECTIVE do you believe the policy is? The following six Likert response selections for question 10 were: very effective, somewhat effective, a little effective, not effective at all, and non-applicable.
Research Question 6 Quantitative Results
The researcher calculated 400 working graduate students answered survey question nine. A little over half of the participants 203 (51%) answered yes to their employer having a comprehensive policy addressing workplace incivility. Ninety-eight (24%) of the participants marked no to their employer having a comprehensive policy addressing workplace incivility, and 99 (25%) of the participants marked unsure. Three participants did not provide an answer and two participants selected more than one response. The researcher did not include the duplicate answers by the two participants to prevent replication within the data summary.
The number of female participants, (n=109) 53.7%, that selected yes to their employer having a comprehensive policy addressing workplace incivility was slightly greater than the total number of males, (n=94) 46.3%. A lesser number of participants
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 118 responded stating that their employer did not have a comprehensive policy. The total number of females that marked no were (n=65) 66.3% and the total number of males that marked no were (n=33) 33.7%. Nearly the same amount of participants said they were unsure as to if their employer had a comprehensive policy. The quantity of females that selected unsure were (n=69) 69.7%, and the number of males were (n=30) 30.3%.
Null hypothesis # 11: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view of the level to which there is a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 23, yielded a value of .140 (α = 0.05; critical = .195).
This weak relationship was not significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no significant relationship between gender and the view of the level to which there is a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace.
Table 23
Gender Indications of Their Employment Comprehensive Policy Addressing Workplace Incivility
Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.14059777 R Square 0.01976773 Standard Error 0.82156781 Observations 399
Comparisons of participants by age group of participants show additional differences among the generations. One participant (n=1) 0.5% of the Traditionalists
(1925-1945) generation selected yes in response to their employer having a comprehensive policy. Also, (n=48) 23.6% Baby Boomers (1946-1964) said yes.
Generation X (1965-1980) participants (n=83) 40.9% had the most responses for the
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 119 selection of yes, followed by Generation Y (1981-1999) (n=71) 35.0% which had the second most responses among the four generations. Only three of the four generations chose the no selection response. Baby Boomers (1946-1964) (n=9) 9.2% had the fewest number of responses for stating that their employer did not have a comprehensive policy.
Generation X (1965-1980) (n=51) 52% had the most responses followed by Generation Y
(1981-1999) (n=37) 37.8%. The last of the response selection choices showed that of the
Traditionalists (1925-1946) working graduate students (n=1) 1.0% said they were unsure as to if their employer had a comprehensive policy. Of the Baby Boomers (1946-1964)
(n=7) 7.1% noted they were unsure. Generation X (1965-1980) (n=39) 39.8% said they were unsure and Generation Y (1981-1999) participants (n=51) 52.0% had the highest number for the unsure response selection.
Null hypothesis # 12: There is no relationship between the generations of the research participant and the view of the level to which there is a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace.
Table 24
Generation Indications of Their Employment Comprehensive Policy Addressing Workplace Incivility
Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.18741684 R Square 0.03512507 Standard Error 0.81510664 Observations 399
A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 24, yielded a value of .187 (α = 0.05; critical = .195). This weak relationship was not significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no significant
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 120 relationship between generations and the view of the level to which there is a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace. Question 10 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey asked working graduate students If your employer has a comprehensive workplace incivility policy, how EFFECTIVE do you believe the policy is? Response selections included: very effective, somewhat effective, a little effective, not effective at all, and non- applicable.
A total of 381 working graduate students answered survey question 10. Of the total number of responses, 42 (11%) of the participants consider their employer‘s comprehensive workplace incivility policy to be effective. One-hundred and eighteen
(31%) of the participants responded that they believe their employer‘s comprehensive workplace incivility policy to be somewhat effective. Forty-six (12%) said they feel that their employer‘s comprehensive workplace policy is a little effective. Thirty-six (9%) of the participants deem their employer‘s comprehensive workplace policy to be not effective at all, and 139 (37%) selected non applicable as their answer. Twenty-four participants left question 10 blank.
Focusing on gender as the variable, a close balance of both females (n=20) 47.6% and males (n=22) 52.4% stated they felt their employer‘s comprehensive workplace policy to be very effective. A greater number of female participants (n=63) 53.4% and male participants (n=55) 46.6% felt that their employer‘s comprehensive workplace policy to be somewhat effective. Lower numbers were visible by females (n=31) 67.4% and males
(n=15) 32.6% who viewed their employer‘s comprehensive workplace policy as only a little effective. The selection response not effective at all shows the least number of responses by females (n=21) 58.3% and males (n=15) 41.7%. The non- applicable
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 121 response selection had the most responses by the female (n=93) 66.9% and male (46)
33.1% participants.
Null hypothesis # 13: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and the view of the level of effectiveness of a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 25, yielded a value of .135 (α = 0.05; critical = .195). This weak relationship was not significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no significant relationship between gender and the view of the level of effectiveness of a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace.
Table 25
Gender Indications of Their Employment Comprehensive Workplace Incivility Policy Effectiveness
Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.13505723 R Square 0.01824045 Standard Error 1.48003773 Observations 380
The results of comparative generational breakouts showed none of the working graduate students who are Traditionalists (1925-1945) viewed their employers to have a very effective comprehensive workplace policy. There were (n=13) 31.0% Baby
Boomers (1946-1964) who felt their employers had a very effective comprehensive workplace policy. Generation X (1965-1980) participants (n=19) 45.2% said their employers had a very effective comprehensive workplace policy and Generation Y
(1981-1999) participants (n=10) 23.8% selected very effective. For the somewhat effective response selection, one Traditionalist (1925-1945) (n=1) 0.9% marked this
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 122 choice. The total of Baby Boomers (1946-1964) (n=28) 23.9% marked somewhat effective. The Generation X (1965-1981) participants equaled (n=45) 38.5% and slightly lower, the Generation Y (1981-1999) participants numbers equaled (n=43) 36.8%. There were no selections made for the a little effective response selection by Traditionalist
(1925-1945) working graduate students. Furthermore, (n=5) 10.9% of the selections made for the a little effective response were made by Baby Boomers (1946-1964) working graduate students. Generation X (1965-1980) working graduate students equated for (n=19) 41.3% of the total number of responses for a little effective, and Generation Y
(1981-1999) working graduate students summed (n=22) 47.8%. The not effective at all response was not chosen by the Traditionalist (1925-1945) participants. A small number
(n=5) 13.9% of the Baby Boomers (1946-1964) participants chose not effective at all.
(n=18) 50.0% of the Generation X (1965-1980) participants and (n=13) 36.1% of the
Generation Y (1981-1999) participants felt that their employer‘s comprehensive workplace policy was not effective at all. The non -applicable response selection had a
Traditionalist (1925-1945) (n=1) 0.7% participant mark this choice, and (n=7) 5.0% of the responses were from participants that are Baby Boomers (1946-1964). An equaled distributed number of responses were visible from both the Generation X (1965-1980) participants (n=65) 46.8% and Generation Y (1981-1999) participants (n=65) 46.8%.
Null hypothesis # 14: There is no relationship between the generations of the research participant and the view of the level of effectiveness of a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 26, yielded a value of .219 (α = 0.05; critical = .195). This weak relationship was significant. The null hypothesis was rejected,
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 123
and there is a significant relationship between generations and the view of the level of effectiveness of a comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace.
Table 26
Generation Indications of Their Employment Comprehensive Workplace Incivility Policy Effectiveness
Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.21909987 R Square 0.04800475 Standard Error 1.45742969 Observations 380
Research Question 6 Qualitative Results
Question 9 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey did not generate any qualitative responses. Question 10 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey included a text box marked other, please specify below. Of the 381 working graduate students that provided responses, 11 participants did provide comments. The researcher observed a few comments were written as positive testimonies and the bulk of the remaining comments addressed concerns about the discipline and enforcement of their employer‘s policy.
A participant that marked very effective to the question shared, ―But I haven‘t taken the program yet, human resources take these subjects very seriously.‖ Another participant that had selected the very effective response as their answer wrote, ―Everyone is very respectful of each other at work.‖ A number of comments from participants pinpointed additional management support is needed. One participant that marked his or her employer‘s comprehensive workplace incivility policy is somewhat effective shared,
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 124
―It is only effective when enforced, which varies by manager/department.‖ Another participant that marked their response as somewhat effective wrote, ―As long as it is acknowledged and adhered to in the office-pushed by management.‖ Further comments from participants that selected the responses a little effective or not effective at all provided candid concerns about their employer‘s policy. A participant that marked a little effective felt that, ―More review is needed of policies.‖ Another comment from a participant that chose a little effective from the selection of responses commented, ―Most are concerned with backlash.‖ One of two participants that said their employer‘s comprehensive incivility policy is not effective at all wrote, ―It‘s a small company, some people in charge are the problem‖ and the second participant wrote, ―I do not believe the policy is intended to be effective at addressing incivility, rather to only protect the company.‖
Research Question 6 Interview Qualitative Results
Question 5 of the questionnaire asked interviewees Do you believe that your management would support you if you report an incident (or incidents) of incivility? Why or why not? The researcher collected responses from each of the interviewees and summarized the replies in the table below. GSTUDENT #2 did not provide a supporting answer to question 5.
Table 27
Interview Responses Of Management Would Support Reporting An Incident of Incivility
Interviewee Interviewee Response Yeah I think they would, cause if I have to report it, it would have to be something very bad and in most of the cases in management GSTUDENT #1 you want to take care of things internally and if I had to go and report something to our headquarters it would have to be real bad.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 125
Yes. My supervisor would. She would support me I can‘t say that GSTUDENT #3 other if she‘s still there or not.
I do because she you know has taken our back on that one and anything that negatively affects our job will negatively affect her in GSTUDENT #4 the end. So if we‘re not happy; she‘s not happy. So she takes, she does whatever she needs to do to put an end to that.
I don‘t, I think it depends on the severity. I think if it was an incident that broke the code of security because we really don‘t have a code of conduct. We have a dress code, but I know GSTUDENT #5 management doesn‘t really follow that. But if it was a security risk then yes because one security mistake and we lose all of our business and pretty much shut down.
GSTUDENT #6 Um no.
I think that they would. I think that they don‘t try to avoid any GSTUDENT #7 friction in the department they definitely don‘t want people complaining about stuff.
Yes I do. I think my manager does all he can to make sure we that have a good workforce and everyone works together. I think he would if there was an issue, would address it you know first talk to me about it and see what we need to do and, is it something that I GSTUDENT #8 am just receiving or something that‘s truly an issue and letting him take the steps necessary so yeah I feel that very much so not only with this manager but fortunately with almost every manager I‘ve had so far. So I feel very lucky in that respect.
GSTUDENT #9 Well barely I mean I really wondered about that.
GSTUDENT Yes, I agree whole heartedly. #10
At Workplace ABC I would say yes because Workplace ABC was a corporate environment and they were very big on non- hostile GSTUDENT environments and if you felt uncomfortable with the gentleman #11 asking you to go to lunch even though he was doing it as a sheer friend they would take action on that immediately.
GSTUDENT Yes, I do think management will support an incident and address it #12 in a way that would be beneficial for the company and for co-
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 126
workers.
Him and I are like oil and water anyway I respect him as an employee he‘s a damn good employee. Personal out there I‘d just GSTUDENT kick his ass everyday cause I can‘t stand him as far as personal. #13 Professional I work with him. But you definitely would approach him and let him know oh absolutely yeah I would.
I think if you had enough I think they would if you had enough GSTUDENT facts behind it and depending on what it was. Maybe a witness and #14 it was credible. I do think that they would.
GSTUDENT Depends on who the person is. Plain and simple. Some people are #15 connected politically, and some people aren‘t.
I guess it depends on what it is and how I present it. But they are GSTUDENT very mindful of what you are complaining about has a lot to do #16 with any activity or action they will take.
No, because obviously with the harassment it wasn‘t until we‘re all in a room and I just felt that he did not stick up for me and it wasn‘t GSTUDENT until they said can you two work together, can you two be in the #17 same building together well yeah if we have to be to serve families that‘s our number one priority.
Management would support me if I were to report an incident or GSTUDENT incidents of incivility if it involved peers, subordinates, or #18 employees from other divisions.
The majority of the interviewees affirmed they felt their management would be supportive if a report of incivility was brought forth. A few participants shared the good rapport that they have with their management and provided a detailed explanation as to why they felt comfortable. GSTUDENT#4 shared, ―I do because she has taken our back on that one and anything that negatively affects our job will negatively affect her in the end. So if we‘re not happy; she‘s not happy.‖ GSTUDENT#8 confirmed, ―I think my manager does all he can to make sure we have a good workforce and everyone works
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 127 together. Not only with this manager, but fortunately with almost every manager I‘ve had so far. I feel very lucky.‖
Some participants shared contrasting feelings of support by their management regarding reporting workplace incivility. GSTUDENT#15 commented, ―Depends on who the person is. Plain and simple. Some people are connected politically, and some people aren‘t.‖ GSTUDENT#16 said, ―I guess it depends on what it is and how I present it.
What you are complaining about has a lot to do with any activity or action they will take.‖ Lastly, GSTUDENT#17 disclosed, ―No, I just felt that he did not stick up for me.‖
Summary of Research Question 6
Results for question 9 of the working graduate student survey showed 51% of the working graduate students stated their employer does have a comprehensive policy addressing workplace incivility. Question 10 focused on how working graduate students rated the effectiveness of their employer‘s policy. Only 11% of the participants felt their employer‘s policy was effective. Qualitative responses from question 10 provided additional detail not visible from only viewing the quantitative responses. The comments shared by some participants revealed while their employer may have a comprehensive policy, a considerable amount of increased authority are needed to sustain the guidelines.
Responses from interview participants demonstrated about half felt comfortable to approach their management with a report or workplace incivility while the other half did not feel that their management would be supportive.
Quantitative data findings for question 9 revealed there was not a relationship between the genders of the research participants and the view of the level to which there is a comprehensive policy in place addressing incivility in the workplace. A Pearson
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 128
Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 23 generated a value of .140 (α = 0.05; critical = .195). This relationship was not significant.
The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is not a significant relationship between genders and the view of the level to which there is a comprehensive policy in place addressing incivility in the workplace.
Additional quantitative findings for question 9 showed there was not a relationship among the four generations of the research participants and the perspective of the level to which there was a comprehensive policy in place addressing incivility in the workplace. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 24, produced a value of .187 (α = 0.05; critical = .195). This was not a relationship of significance. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is not a significant relationship among the four generations and the perspective of the level to which there was a comprehensive policy in place addressing incivility in the workplace.
Question 10 quantitative analysis showed there was not a relationship between the genders of the research participants and the view of how effective their employer‘s comprehensive policy was in addressing incivility in the workplace. A Pearson Product
Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 25, yielded a value of .135 (α = 0.05; critical = .195). This weak relationship was not significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no significant relationship between the genders and the view of how effective their employer‘s comprehensive policy was in addressing incivility in the workplace.
Question 10 quantitative analysis showed a weak significant relationship among the four generations of the research participants and the view of how effective their
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 129 employer‘s comprehensive policy was in addressing incivility in the workplace. A
Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table
26, produced a value of .219 (α = 0.05; critical = .195). This weak relationship was significant. So, the null hypothesis was rejected, and there is no significant relationship among the four generations and the view of how effective their employer‘s comprehensive policy was in addressing incivility in the workplace. The researcher is
95% confident that 4.8% of the variation in the view towards effectiveness of the comprehensive policy addressing incivility in the workplace can be explained by the variation in generation of the participants.
Research Question 7
What types of behavior (verbal/non-verbal) do working graduate students perceive as contributing to a toxic workplace? Question 3 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey asked working graduate students to please indicate if you think the behavior institutes "incivility" in the workplace. Listed below are some employee behaviors you might have experienced in your workplace during the past calendar year (2009). Participants marked their response using an "X" in the appropriate box of the following selections: always, under some conditions, never, and non- applicable (N/A).
Research Question 7 Quantitative Results
A list of 31 verbal/non-verbal employee behaviors listed in random order offered working graduate students the opportunity to mark a selection from one of the four response selections. The researcher performed descriptive statistics on each of the 31 behaviors. Analysis included noting the number of participants that did not mark a
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 130 response selection as well as the number of participants that marked more than one response selection. One participant turned in a blank survey with no selections made for any of the 31 behaviors.
Behavior number one Acting Bored or Apathetic generated a total of (n=387) participants marking a response selection. The largest number of responses marked by the participants (n=284) 74% was for the ―under some conditions‖ response. The response never was the second largest number of responses from participants (n=44%)
11%. An almost equal number of participants, (n=43) 11%, marked the response
―never‖. The researcher calculated the smallest number of responses came from the participants, (n=16) 4%, who selected N/A. There were a total of 17 blank responses and no duplicate responses marked by the participants.
The number of participant responses for behavior number two Cell Phone
Disruptions totaled (n=397). More than half of the participants, (n=243) 61%, stated that they experienced cell phone disruptions under some circumstances in their workplace.
The second largest number of responses came from participants, (n=114) 29%, who said that they always experience cell phone disruptions in their workplace. A number of participants, (n=33) 8%, said they never experienced cell phone disruptions and a small number of participants, (n=7) 2%, marked N/A. There was a total of six blank responses and one duplicated response.
Behavior number three asked participants to rate if they experienced loud talking in the workplace. A total of n=395 participants marked an answer in response to this behavior. Over half of the participants, (n=225) 57%, said that under some circumstances they have experienced loud talking in their workplace. The next highest number of
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 131 responses were from participants, (n=134) 34%, who stated they always experienced loud talking in their workplace. A total of (n=33) 8% participants said they never experienced loud talking in their workplace and (n=3)1% of participants marked N/A. There were an observed total of eight blank responses and one duplicate response for this behavior.
The results for behavior number four loud talking on cell phone in the workplace, showed almost equal number for two of the response selections. Of the (n=397) noted responses, a total of (n=168) 42% of participants said they always experience loud talking on cell phone in the workplace. A near matching number of participants, (n=166) 42%, said under some circumstances they experienced loud talking on the cell phone in the workplace. A smaller number of responses from participants, (n=55) 14%, said they never experience loud talking on cell phone in their workplace. The response selection
N/A accounted for the least number of participants, (n=8) 2% marking this answer.
There were a total of six blank responses and one duplicate response.
Behavior number five holding conversations in high traffic areas resulted with a total of (n=392) marking a selected answer. The majority of participants (n=218) 56% commented that under some circumstances they have experienced the behavior of holding conversations in high traffic areas in their workplace. The second highest number of responses came from the participants, (n=108) 27%, who stated that they have always experienced employees in their workplace holding conversations in high traffic areas. The third highest number of responses from participants, (n=55) 14%, who stated that they never experienced employees holding conversations in high traffic areas in their workplaces. The fourth and last number of responses came from participants, (n=11) 3%,
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 132 who marked N/A as their answer. There were 11 blank responses and one duplicate response observed during the analysis of this behavior.
An overall total of (n=392) participants marked a response for the sixth behavior, eating smelly food. Slightly less than half of the participants, (n=191) 49%, said under some circumstances they experienced employees eating smelly food in their workplace.
The next largest percentage of responses came from participants, (n=111) 28%, stating they never experienced employees eating smelly food in their workplace. A sizeable number of participants, (n=78) 20%, confirmed they always experienced employees eating smelly food in their workplace. A small number of participants, (n=13) 3%, decided to mark N/A as their answer. There were 10 noted blanks and one duplicated response.
Behavior number seven asked participants if they experienced excessive use of perfume/cologne in their workplace. A total of (n=396) participants selected a response.
A little less than half of the total responses from participants, (n=188) 48%, said under some circumstances they have experienced employees excessive use of perfume/cologne in their workplace. A total of (n=115) 29% of participants said they never experienced employees excessive use of perfume/cologne in their workplace. Less than a quarter percentage of participants (n=77) 19% said they always experienced employees excessive use of perfume/cologne in their workplace and (n=16) 4% of the participants marked
N/A. Calculated totals showed there were eight blank responses and one duplicated response.
The number of responses made by participants behavior number eight, excessive laughter and horseplay, resulted (n=391) 11 blank responses and two duplicated
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 133 responses. Greater than half of the participants, (n=227) 58%, responded under some circumstances they experienced employees excessive laughter and horseplay in their workplace. A significant number or participants, (n=118) 30%, mentioned they always experienced employees excessive laughter and horseplay in their workplace. The number of participants that said they never experienced employees excessive laughter and horseplay in their workplace summed (n=42) 11% and a few participants, (n=4) 1%, stated excessive laughter and horseplay was N/A in their workplace.
Behavior number nine asked participants if they experienced harassing comments
(racial, ethnic, gender) directed at them in their workplace. A generous number of participants (n=399) did provide an answer selection. The results of the total responses revealed four blank responses and one duplicated answer. A substantial result of the responses showed that participants, (n=230) 58%, said they always experienced harassing comments (racial, ethnic, gender) directed at them in their workplace. Nearly less than a quarter percent of the participants, (n=96) 24%, said they never experienced harassing comments (racial, ethnic, gender) directed at them in their workplace. The number of participants (n=60) 15% said under some circumstances they experienced harassing comments (racial, ethnic, gender) directed at them in their workplace and (n=13) 3% of the participants marked N/A.
Nearly almost all of the participants (n=398) provided an answer in response to behavior number 10, harassing comments or behavior directed at them. Again, an immense number of responses from participants, (n=226) 57%, stated they always experienced harassing comments or behavior directed at them in their workplace. A smaller amount of participants, (n=92) 23%, said they never experienced harassing
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 134 comments or behavior directed at them in their workplace. A lesser number of participants, (n=70) 18%, marked the response for under some circumstances and the response selection N/A had the least number of responses made by participants (n=10)
2%. There were five blank responses accounted for and one duplicated response.
Behavior 11 asked participants to share if they experienced hostile verbal attacks or challenges directed at them in their workplace. The vast number of participants, (n=226)
56%, acknowledged they always experienced hostile verbal attacks or challenges directed at them in their workplace. Of the total responses, (n=95) 24% of the participants said they never experienced hostile verbal attacks or challenges directed at them in their workplace. Far less in number, were the total responses for under some circumstances marked by participants, (n=68) 17%. An even less number of participant, (n=11) 3%, responses for the selection N/A resulted from the totals. There were four blank responses noted within the totals.
Behavior 12 inappropriate e-mails at you, generated responses from n=398 participants. There were five observed blank responses and one duplicated response among the totals. A little less than half of the participants, (n=118) 47%, stated they always experienced inappropriate e-mails at them in their workplace. The response selection never received the second highest number of responses from the participants,
(n=119) 30%. The response selection under some circumstances represented the third largest number of responses from the participants (n=83) 21%. A small amount of the participants, (n=8) 2%, marked N/A for their answer.
A total of n=398 participants marked a selection for behavior 13 not paying attention in meetings. There were nine blank responses and one duplicated response noted. Greater
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 135 than half of the participants, (n=227) 58%, said that they under some circumstances experienced employees not paying attention in meetings in their workplace. A little greater than a quarter of the participants, (n=104) 26%, said they always experienced employees not paying attention in meetings. Also, (n=55) 14% of the participants said they never experienced employees not paying attention and (n=8) 2% of the participants marked N/A.
Behavior 14 asked participants if they experienced the employee behavior of not taking notes during meetings. A sum of n=393 participants provided an answer selection and nine participants left a blank response, and one participant marked more than one response. A considerable number of participants, (n=242) 62%, said they experienced employees not taking notes under some circumstances. The remaining number of responses made up for (n=99) 25% of the participants stated they never experienced the employee behavior of not taking notes during meetings, (n=38) 10% of the participants stated they always experienced the employee behavior of not taking notes during meetings. A small number of participants, (n=14) 3%, marked N/A as their response.
The 15th behavior listed asked participants if they experienced other harassing comments directed at you. A total of n=398 participants chose a response from the answer selections. Findings from the responses showed six blank responses and one duplicated response. A little more than half of the responses made by the participants,
(n=207) 52%, stated they experienced other harassing comments directed at them in their workplace. A total of (n=107) 27% participants said they never experienced other harassing comments directed at them in their workplace. A significant number of participants, (n=75) 19%, said under some circumstances they experienced other
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 136 harassing comments directed at them in their workplace. Exactly, (n=9) 2% of the participants chose N/A as their response.
A total of n=392 participants provided an answer for behavior 16 reluctance to answer direct questions. Findings showed over half of the participants, (n=249) 63%, experienced under some circumstances the employee behavior of reluctance to answer direct questions in their workplace. Additional findings showed the next largest number of responses were from participants (n=75) 19% that said they never experienced employees reluctance to answer direct questions in their workplace. A small percentage of participants, (n=57) 15%, said they always experienced employees reluctance to answer direct questions in their workplace. A total of (n=111) 3% of participants marked
N/A as their answer. There were a total of 12 blank responses accounted for this behavior.
Behavior 17 sarcastic remarks or gestures, staged yawning or eye rolling generated a sum total of n=398 participants that provided a response. There were six blank responses noted from the totals. Two of the four response selections accounted for the bulk of the responses. The most responses observed by the researcher were marked for the always response by participants, (n=184) 46%, and the second most marked response under some circumstances generated a total of (n=155) 39% of the total. The remaining total of responses made up for (n=53) 13 of participants who selected never and (n=6) 2% of participants that marked the N/A response.
The results for behavior 18 sleeping on the job showed a total of n=396 participants that chose one of the four responses provided. During the analysis review, there were eight blank responses noted. Nearly half of the responses from the participants, (n=189)
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 137
48%, confirmed working graduate students always experienced employees sleeping on the job in their workplace. Also, 30% (n=118) participants said that they never experienced employees sleeping on the job in their workplace. Under some circumstances
(n=78) 19% of the participants experienced employees sleeping on the job in their workplace and (n=11) 3% of the participants picked N/A as their answer.
A total number of participants n=396 marked a response for behavior 19 arriving to work late. The vast majority of participants, (n=239) 60%, felt they experienced employees in their workplace arriving to work late under some circumstances. A lower yet significant number of participants, (n=107) 27%, said they always experienced employees in their workplace arriving to work late. A number of participants, (n=42)
11%, said they never experienced employees arriving to work late in their workplace. A small number of participants, (n=8) 2%, picked N/A as their answer for this employee behavior.
Behavior 20 arriving late to a meeting generated a total of n=394 participants who marked a selection and 10 participants who did not mark a selection. The answer under some circumstances was chosen the most by the participants (n=240) 61%. The second highest chosen answer by the participants (n=98) 25% was always. Never was the third highest chosen answer by the participants, (n=46) 12%, and N/A had the lowest number of responses from the total number of participants (n=10) 2% that marked an answer.
A very good number of participants n=393 marked an answer for behavior 21 being unprepared. The bulk of the responses made by participants (n=215) 55% said that they experienced employees under some circumstances being unprepared in their workplace.
A fairly large number of participants, (n=113) 29%, said they always experienced
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 138 employees in their workplace being unprepared. A number of participants, (n=55) 14%, shared they never experienced employees being unprepared in their workplace and
(n=10) 2% of the participants marked N/A as their answer. A total of 10 blanks were counted from the totals as well as one duplicated response.
Behavior 22 employees challenging your knowledge or credibility in front of peers produced n=395 participant responses. There were seven blank responses and two duplicated responses observed. The total number of participants, (n=120) 30%, said they always experienced employees challenging their knowledge or credibility in front of peers did not outweigh the total number of participant (n=185) 47% responses that said they experienced this employee behavior under some circumstances. A lower number of participants, (n=77) 20%, stated they never experienced employees challenging their knowledge or credibility in front of peers in their workplace.
Employees’ conversations distracting other employees was behavior 23 in which n=396 participants provided an answer. There were eight blank responses and one duplicated response noted for this behavior. The greater part of the total number of participant responses, (n=236) 60%, favored the response under some circumstances. The total number of participants, (n=115) 29%, that said they always experienced employees‘ conversations distracting other employees in their workplace far outnumbered the total number of responses by the participants (n=43) 11% who marked the response selection never. Not many participants, (n=2) 0%, marked N/A from the listed responses to choose from.
Behavior 24 employees' conversations distracting you yielded n=399 participant responses. Examination of the total number of responses, the researcher counted five
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 139 blank answers. The largest number of calculated responses came from participants,
(n=247) 62%, who said under some circumstances they experienced employees‘ conversations distracting. The next largest group of responses came from participants,
(n=107) 27%, who stated they always experienced employees‘ conversations distracting them in their workplace. The response never accounted a lower number of participant responses, (n=44) 11%. Only one participant marked N/A as their response.
The results for behavior 25 employees' creating tension by dominating discussion captured n=397 participant responses from the 405 total working graduate students surveyed. Six blank responses and one duplicated response resulted from the totals for behavior 26. More than half of the participants, (n=224) 57%, answered they experienced employees‘ creating tension by dominating discussion in their workplace. A large number of participants, (n=108) 27%, communicated they always experienced employees‘ creating tension by dominating discussion in their workplace. Also, 15% of the participants (n=61) said they never experienced employees‘ creating tension by dominating discussion in their workplace, and 1% of the responses were from participants (n=4) who selected N/A.
Behavior number 26 absenteeism produced eight blank responses left unmarked by the total number of participants n=395 who did mark a selection from the choice of answers provided. Additionally, there was one duplicated answer noted within the totals.
The greater part of the total number of responses were from participants, (n=214) 54%, who indicated absenteeism as a behavior that institutes incivility in their workplace.
There were a total of (n=108) 27% participants who said they always experienced absenteeism as an incivility behavior in their workplace. A total of (n=66) 17%
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 140 participants said they never experienced the behavior absenteeism as a behavior that institutes incivility in their workplace. A small number of participants, (n=7) 2%, chose
N/A as their response.
Nearly almost all of the participants n=397 marked a response for behavior number
27 employees leaving work early. There were seven participants that left a blank response. An extreme number of participants, (n=279) 70%, felt that they experienced under some circumstances employees leaving work early as incivility. An almost equal number of participants chose answer selections always, (n=56) 14%, and never, (n=54)
14%, as their response. Some participants, (n=8) 2%, did select N/A as their response.
Behavior 28 threats of physical harm against you generated large percentages for two of the four response selections. A total of n=395 participants willingly marked an answer for this behavior. Nine participants did not mark a selection and left a blank response.
More than half of the participants, (n=234) 59%, said they always think threats of physical harm against them in their workplace institutes incivility. Opposite of always,
34% of the participants (n=135) said they never think threats of physical harm against them institutes incivility in the workplace. The response selection under some circumstances generated 4% (n=14) of totals and the response selection N/A had an almost matching number of responses, 3% (n=12).
There were n=395 participants who marked a response for behavior 29 using a computer during working hours for non- related work. Nine blank responses were found by the researcher among the totals. A count of (n=71) 18% of the participants said they always institute using a computer during work hours for non- related work as incivility.
A sum of (n=249) 63% of the participants said under some circumstances they institute
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 141 using a computer during work hours for non- related work as incivility. The total number of participants (n=65) who selected never made up 16% of the total responses. There were some participants, (n=10) 3%, that picked N/A as their response.
A total of n=395 participants marked an answer for behavior number 30 vulgarity directed as you. There were nine blank responses noted from the total number of participant responses. The answer response from the four selections marked by the participants (n=222) 56% made up more than half of the total responses. The next highest number of responses marked by participants (n=112) made up 28% of the responses for the answer never. Also, 13% (n=49) of the participants said under some circumstances and (n=12) 3% of the participants said N/A.
The last of the 31 behavior listed over use of text or abbreviations / acronyms generated n=394 participant responses. There were a total of 10 blank responses. The number of participants that marked always as their response selection for this behavior totaled (n=58) 15%. The response under some circumstances generated the most responses from the participants (n=159) 40% followed by an almost equally large number from participants (n=145) 37% who marked never. There were a number of participants,
(n=32) 8% that chose N/A as their answer.
In review of each behavior and the percentage totals from the responses of the participants, the researcher selected the top 10 ranked behaviors according to gender and generation. Within the table below, there were notable differences between each of the variables as well as similar behaviors shaded gray to note that there were viewed as uncivil by both gender and generation.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 142
Table 28
Ranking of Employee Behaviors by Gender and Generation
Rank No. Employee Behaviors Gender No. p-value
1 30 Vulgarity directed at you 0.996 2 6 Eating smelly food 0.971 Hostile verbal attacks or challenges directed at 3 11 you 0.906 Sarcastic remarks or gestures, staged yawning or 4 17 eye rolling 0.898 5 10 Harassing comments or behavior directed at you 0.881 6 12 Inappropriate e-mails to you 0.842 7 19 Arriving late to work 0.840 8 14 Not taking notes during meetings 0.836 9 1 Acting bored or apathetic 0.830 10 26 Absenteeism 0.779
Rank No. Employee Behaviors Generation No. p-value
1 15 Other harassing comments directed at you 0.976 2 3 Loud talking in the workplace 0.832 3 10 Harassing comments or behavior directed at you 0.753 Harassing comments (racial, ethnic, 4 9 gender)directed at you 0.747 5 6 Eating smelly food 0.667 Hostile verbal attacks or challenges directed at 6 11 you 0.542 7 12 Inappropriate e-mails to you 0.463 Employees' conversations distracting other 8 23 employee 0.458 Employees' creating tension by dominating 9 25 discussion 0.427 Employees challenging your knowledge or credibility 10 22 in front of peers 0.407
Note. Representation of common themes between both gender and generation employee behaviors are in bold face
The researcher also conducted tests for weighted mean for the gender variable.
Findings for each of the 31 behaviors in the table below show satisfactory weighted mean
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 143 equivalences. Additionally, there was no evidence of strong weighted mean equivalences for the gender variable.
Table 29
Gender Indications of Employee Behaviors that Institute Incivility in the Workplace
Under Some Weighted Gender Always Never N/A Totals Conditions Mean
N % N % N % N % F 31 72% 163 57% 27 61% 12 75% 233 1.91 Acting bored or apathetic M 12 28% 121 43% 17 39% 4 25% 154 1.92 F 78 68% 138 57% 20 61% 5 71% 241 2.20 Cell phone disruptions M 36 32% 105 43% 13 39% 2 29% 156 2.12 F 90 67% 124 55% 24 73% 2 67% 240 2.26 Loud talking in the workplace M 44 33% 101 45% 9 27% 1 33% 155 2.21 F 110 65% 87 52% 40 73% 4 50% 241 2.26 Loud talking on cell phone M 58 35% 79 48% 15 27% 4 50% 156 2.22
Holding F 67 62% 133 61% 32 58% 7 64% 239 2.09 conversations in high traffic areas M 41 38% 85 39% 23 42% 4 36% 153 2.07 F 48 60% 120 63% 62 56% 10 77% 240 1.86 Eating smelly food M 32 40% 71 37% 49 44% 3 23% 155 1.85 F 42 55% 116 62% 68 59% 14 88% 240 1.78 Excessive use of perfume/cologne M 35 45% 72 38% 47 41% 2 13% 156 1.90 F 80 68% 131 58% 25 60% 2 50% 238 2.21 Excessive laughter and horseplay M 38 32% 96 42% 17 40% 2 50% 153 2.11 Harassing comments F 140 61% 34 57% 58 60% 10 77% 242 2.26 (racial, ethnic, gender) M 90 39% 26 43% 38 40% 3 23% 157 2.29 directed at you Harassing comments F 138 61% 41 59% 56 61% 7 70% 242 2.28 or behavior directed at you M 88 39% 29 41% 36 39% 3 30% 156 2.29 Continued
Table 29 continued
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 144
Under Weighted Gender Always Some Never N/A Totals Mean Conditions
N % N % N % N % Harassing F 138 61% 41 59% 56 61% 7 70% 242 2.28 comments or behavior directed at M 88 39% 29 41% 36 39% 3 30% 156 2.29 you Hostile verbal F 140 62% 36 53% 59 62% 7 64% 242 2.28 attacks or challenges directed M 86 38% 32 47% 36 38% 4 36% 158 2.27 at you F 118 63% 40 49% 77 65% 6 75% 241 2.12 Inappropriate e- mails to you M 70 37% 42 51% 42 35% 2 25% 156 2.15 F 65 63% 130 57% 39 71% 6 75% 240 2.06 Not paying attention in meetings M 39 38% 97 43% 16 29% 2 25% 154 2.12 F 27 71% 137 57% 64 65% 9 64% 237 1.77 Not taking notes during meetings M 11 29% 105 43% 35 35% 5 36% 156 1.78
Other harassing F 130 63% 41 55% 66 62% 5 56% 242 2.22 comments directed at you M 77 63% 34 45% 41 38% 4 44% 156 2.18 Reluctance to F 35 61% 153 61% 44 59% 5 45% 237 1.92 answer direct questions M 22 39% 96 39% 31 41% 6 55% 155 1.86 Sarcastic remarks or F 117 64% 85 55% 34 64% 5 83% 241 2.30 gestures, staged yawning or eye M 67 36% 70 45% 19 36% 1 17% 157 2.29 rolling F 112 59% 49 63% 70 59% 9 82% 240 2.10 Sleeping on the job M 77 41% 29 37% 48 41% 2 18% 156 2.16 F 64 60% 149 62% 21 50% 6 75% 240 2.13 Arriving late to work M 43 40% 90 38% 21 50% 2 25% 156 2.12 F 51 52% 151 63% 32 70% 6 60% 240 2.03 Arriving late to a meeting M 47 48% 89 37% 14 30% 4 40% 154 2.16 Continued
Table 29 continued
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 145
Under Some Weighted Always Never N/A Totals Gender Conditions Mean
N % N % N % N % F 62 55% 133 62% 37 67% 5 50% 237 2.06 Being unprepared M 51 45% 82 38% 18 33% 5 50% 156 2.15 Employees F 70 58% 115 62% 43 56% 11 85% 239 2.02 challenging your knowledge or credibility in M 50 42% 70 38% 34 44% 2 15% 156 2.08 front of peers Employees' F 79 69% 135 57% 25 58% 1 50% 240 2.22 conversations distracting other M 36 31% 101 43% 18 42% 1 50% 156 2.10 employee Employees' 100 conversations F 72 67% 145 59% 24 55% 1 % 242 2.19 distracting you M 35 33% 102 41% 20 45% 0 0% 157 2.10 Employees' 100 creating F 73 68% 123 55% 41 67% 4 % 241 2.10 tension by dominating M 34 32% 101 45% 20 33% 0 0% 155 2.09 discussion F 59 55% 141 66% 34 52% 5 71% 239 2.06 Absenteeism M 49 45% 73 34% 32 48% 2 29% 156 2.08 100 Employees F 30 54% 173 62% 30 56% 8 % 241 1.93 leaving work early M 26 46% 106 38% 24 44% 0 0% 156 2.01
Threats of F 140 60% 7 50% 86 64% 7 58% 240 2.17 physical harm against you M 94 40% 7 50% 49 36% 5 42% 155 2.23 Using a F 50 70% 145 58% 38 58% 6 60% 239 2.00 computer during working hours for non M 21 30% 104 42% 27 42% 4 40% 156 1.91 related work Vulgarity F 138 62% 22 45% 72 64% 7 58% 239 2.22 directed at you M 84 38% 27 55% 40 36% 5 42% 156 2.22 Over use of F 31 53% 92 58% 94 65% 21 66% 238 1.56 text abbreviations/ M 27 47% 67 42% 51 35% 11 34% 156 1.71 acronyms
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 146
Findings for each of the 31 behaviors in Table 30 show satisfactory weighted mean equivalences. Additionally, there was no evidence of strong weighted mean equivalences for the generation variable.
Research Question 7 Qualitative Results
In addition to the 31 employee behaviors listed for question 3 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey an open text box marked as ―other‖ provided the option for working graduate students to hand write if there are any other behaviors in the workplace that institute incivility. A total of 27 participants provided hand written responses of other behaviors (see Table 31).
The researcher noticed from the 27 responses, some behaviors were of similar context from the 31 behaviors listed in question 3. Behavior six eating smelly food and behavior seven excessive use of perfume/cologne pertain to smells, yet one participant shared a comment of a behavior, ―Smelly feet‖ which may pertain to being viewed as uncivil as an offense smell or offensive from an choice of personal hygiene. The same could be observed for another participant‘s comment, ―Painting nails at work; or otherwise grooming at desk‖ as well as another participant‘s comment, ―Spraying air fresheners to cover up odors.‖ Other noticeable similarities included one participant‘s comment, ―Swearing,‖ which aligns with behavior 30 vulgarity directed at you. A few comments pertaining to specific types of technology were a participant who said, ―not using voicemail, constant paging,‖ and another participant who stated, ―Use of texting, or using Skype ™.‖
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 147
Table 30
Generation Indications of Employee Behaviors that Institute Incivility in the Workplace
Under Some Weighted Generation Always Never N/A Totals Conditions Mean N % N % N % N % 1925- 1945 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2.00 1946- 1964 4 9% 43 15% 7 16% 7 44% 61 1.72 Acting bored 1965- or apathetic 1980 20 47% 116 41% 22 50% 6 38% 164 1.91 1981- 1999 18 42% 122 43% 15 34% 3 19% 158 1.98 Decline 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3.00 1925- 1945 1 1% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2.50 1946- 1964 18 16% 36 15% 4 13% 4 57% 62 2.10 Cell phone 1965- disruptions 1980 47 41% 106 44% 17 53% 2 29% 172 2.15 1981- 1999 47 41% 100 41% 11 34% 1 14% 159 2.21 Decline 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3.00 1925- 1945 1 1% 0 0% 1 3% 0 0% 2 2.00 1946- Loud talking 1964 19 14% 36 16% 4 12% 1 33% 60 2.22 in the 1965- workplace 1980 62 46% 92 41% 17 52% 1 33% 172 2.25 1981- 1999 52 39% 95 42% 11 33% 1 33% 159 2.25 Decline 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2.00 1925- 1945 1 1% 0 0% 1 2% 0 0% 2 2.00 1946- 1964 19 11% 31 19% 8 15% 5 63% 63 2.02 Loud talking 1965- on cell phone 1980 83 49% 65 39% 21 39% 2 25% 171 2.34 1981- 1999 64 38% 70 42% 24 44% 1 13% 159 2.24 Decline 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3.00 1925- 1945 1 1% 0 0% 1 2% 0 0% 2 2.00 1946- Holding 1964 9 8% 42 19% 8 15% 2 18% 61 1.95 conversations 1965- in high traffic 1980 42 39% 93 43% 26 47% 7 64% 168 2.01 areas 1981- 1999 56 52% 81 37% 20 36% 2 18% 159 2.20 Decline 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2.00
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 148
Under Some Weighted Generation Always Never N/A Totals Conditions Mean
N % N % N % N % 1925- 1945 0 0% 1 1% 1 1% 0 0% 2 1.50 1946- 1964 12 15% 29 15% 17 15% 3 23% 61 1.82 Eating smelly 1965- food 1980 33 42% 81 42% 48 44% 7 54% 169 1.83 1981- 1999 33 42% 80 42% 44 40% 2 15% 159 1.91 Decline 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 8% 1 0.00 1925- 1945 0 0% 1 1% 1 1% 0 0% 2 1.50 1946- Excessive use of 1964 10 13% 38 20% 9 8% 5 31% 62 1.85 perfume/cologn 1965- e 1980 42 55% 73 39% 48 42% 7 44% 170 1.88 1981- 1999 25 32% 76 40% 56 49% 3 19% 160 1.77 Decline 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 6% 1 0.00 1925- 1945 1 1% 0 0% 1 2% 0 0% 2 2.00 1946- Excessive 1964 13 11% 40 18% 8 19% 0 0% 61 2.08 laughter and 1965- horseplay 1980 55 47% 92 41% 17 40% 4 100% 168 2.18 1981- 1999 49 42% 93 41% 16 38% 0 0% 158 2.21 Decline 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2.00 1925- 1945 1 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 2 2.00 Harassing 1946- comments 1964 33 14% 10 17% 17 18% 3 23% 63 2.16 (racial, ethnic, 1965- gender)directed 1980 104 45% 26 43% 38 40% 4 31% 172 2.34 at you 1981- 1999 91 40% 24 40% 39 41% 6 46% 160 2.25 Decline 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3.00 1925- 1945 0 0% 1 1% 1 1% 0 0% 2 1.50 1946- Harassing 1964 31 14% 16 23% 14 15% 2 20% 63 2.21 comments or 1965- behavior 1980 104 46% 26 37% 40 44% 2 20% 172 2.35 directed at you 1981- 1999 90 40% 27 45% 36 40% 6 60% 159 2.26 Decline 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3.00 Continued
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 149
Under Some Weighted Generation Always Never N/A Totals Conditions Mean
N % N % N % N % 1925- 1945 0 0% 1 1% 1 1% 0 0% 2 1.50 Hostile 1946- 13 verbal 1964 30 % 13 19% 16 17% 4 36% 63 2.10 attacks or 1965- 47 challenges 1980 107 % 28 41% 35 37% 3 27% 173 2.38 directed at 1981- 39 you 1999 88 % 26 38% 42 45% 4 36% 160 2.24 Decline 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3.00 1925- 1945 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 0 0% 2 1.00 1946- 13 Inappropriat 1964 24 % 15 19% 22 18% 2 25% 63 1.97 e e-mails to 1965- 45 you 1980 84 % 31 38% 54 45% 3 38% 172 2.14 1981- 42 1999 79 % 35 43% 41 34% 3 38% 158 2.20 Decline 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3.00 1925- 1945 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2.00 1946- 13 Not paying 1964 14 % 36 16% 9 16% 2 25% 61 2.02 attention in 1965- 39 meetings 1980 41 % 103 46% 23 42% 3 38% 170 2.07 1981- 47 1999 49 % 84 37% 23 42% 3 38% 159 2.13 Decline 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2.00 1925- 1945 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2.00 1946- Not taking 1964 2 5% 42 17% 12 12% 3 21% 59 1.73 notes during 1965- 39 meetings 1980 15 % 99 41% 53 54% 4 29% 171 1.73 1981- 55 1999 21 % 97 40% 34 34% 7 50% 159 1.83 Decline 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2.00 1925- 1945 0 0% 1 1% 1 1% 0 0% 2 1.50 Other 1946- 14 harassing 1964 28 % 18 24% 13 12% 3 33% 62 2.15 comments 1965- 47 directed at 1980 98 % 25 33% 48 45% 1 11% 172 2.28 you 1981- 39 1999 80 % 31 41% 44 42% 5 56% 160 2.16 Decline 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3.00
Continued
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 150
Under Some Weighted Generation Always Never N/A Totals Conditions Mean
N % N % N % N % 1925- 1945 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2.00 1946- Reluctance 1964 6 11% 41 16% 9 12% 3 27% 59 1.85 to answer 1965- direct 1980 22 39% 102 41% 42 57% 3 27% 169 1.85 questions 1981- 1999 28 49% 104 42% 23 31% 5 45% 160 1.97 Decline 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3.00 1925- 1945 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2.00 Sarcastic 1946- remarks or 1964 24 13% 26 17% 9 17% 3 50% 62 2.15 gestures, 1965- staged 1980 79 43% 61 39% 31 60% 1 17% 172 2.27 yawning or 1981- eye rolling 1999 80 43% 66 43% 12 23% 2 33% 160 2.40 Decline 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3.00 1925- 1945 0 0% 1 1% 1 1% 0 0% 2 1.50 1946- 1964 20 11% 14 18% 23 20% 4 36% 61 1.82 Sleeping on 1965- the job 1980 84 44% 35 45% 49 42% 3 27% 171 2.17 1981- 1999 85 45% 28 36% 44 38% 3 27% 160 2.22 Decline 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 9% 1 0.00 1925- 1945 0 0% 1 0% 1 2% 0 0% 2 1.50 1946- 1964 14 13% 37 15% 8 20% 3 38% 62 2.00 Arriving late 1965- to work 1980 43 40% 102 43% 23 56% 3 38% 171 2.08 1981- 1999 49 46% 99 41% 9 22% 2 25% 159 2.23 Decline 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3.00 1925- 1945 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2.00 1946- 1964 10 10% 42 18% 6 13% 3 30% 61 1.97 Arriving late 1965- to a meeting 1980 40 41% 104 43% 22 49% 4 40% 170 2.06 1981- 1999 47 48% 92 38% 17 38% 3 30% 159 2.15 Decline 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3.00 Continued
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 151
Under Some Weighted Generation Always Never N/A Totals Conditions Mean
N % N % N % N % 1925- 1945 0 0% 1 0% 1 2% 0 0% 2 1.50 1946- 1964 11 10% 38 18% 8 15% 4 40% 61 1.92 Being 1965- unprepared 1980 46 41% 91 42% 28 52% 4 40% 169 2.06 1981- 1999 55 49% 85 40% 17 31% 2 20% 159 2.21 Decline 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3.00 1925- 1945 0 0% 1 1% 1 1% 0 0% 2 1.50 Employees 1946- challenging 1964 15 13% 33 18% 10 13% 2 15% 60 2.02 your 1965- knowledge or 1980 56 47% 71 39% 38 49% 6 46% 171 2.04 credibility in 1981- front of peers 1999 48 40% 79 59% 28 36% 5 38% 160 2.06 Decline 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3.00 1925- 1945 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2.00 Employees' 1946- conversations 1964 16 14% 41 1% 3 7% 1 50% 61 2.18 distracting 1965- other 1980 48 42% 99 42% 24 56% 0 0% 171 2.14 employee 1981- 1999 50 43% 93 40% 16 37% 1 50% 160 2.20 Decline 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3.00 1925- 1945 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2.00 1946- Employees' 1964 13 12% 43 17% 5 12% 1 100% 62 2.10 conversations 1965- distracting 1980 42 39% 106 43% 25 58% 0 0% 173 2.10 you 1981- 1999 51 48% 96 66% 13 30% 0 0% 160 2.24 Decline 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3.00 1925- 1945 0 16% 1 0% 1 2% 0 0% 2 1.50 Employees' 1946- creating 1964 17 16% 37 17% 7 12% 1 25% 62 2.13 tension by 1965- dominating 1980 39 36% 100 45% 30 50% 1 25% 170 2.04 discussion 1981- 1999 51 48% 85 38% 22 37% 2 50% 160 2.16 Decline 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2.00 Continued
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 152
Under Some Weighted Generation Always Never N/A Totals Conditions Mean
N % N % N % N % 1925- 1945 0 0% 1 0% 1 2% 0 0% 2 1.50 1946- 43 1964 13 12% 37 17% 8 12% 3 % 61 1.98 Absenteeism 1965- 57 1980 44 41% 86 40% 37 57% 4 % 171 1.99 1981- 1999 51 47% 89 42% 19 29% 0 0% 159 2.20 Decline 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2.00 1925- 1945 0 0% 1 0% 1 2% 0 0% 2 1.50 1946- 63 1964 9 16% 42 15% 6 11% 5 % 62 1.89 Employees 1965- 25 leaving work early 1980 23 41% 117 42% 30 57% 2 % 172 1.94 1981- 1999 24 43% 119 43% 16 30% 0 0% 159 2.05 Decline 13 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 % 1 0.00 1925- 1945 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% 2 1.00 1946- 25 Threats of 1964 33 14% 2 14% 24 18% 3 % 62 2.05 physical harm 1965- 25 against you 1980 105 45% 6 43% 56 42% 3 % 170 2.25 1981- 46 1999 95 41% 6 43% 52 39% 6 % 159 2.19 Decline 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3.00 1925- 1945 1 1% 0 0% 1 2% 0 0% 2 2.00 1946- 20 Using a computer 1964 10 14% 40 16% 9 14% 2 % 61 1.95 during working 1965- 50 hours for non 1980 23 32% 110 44% 33 52% 5 % 171 1.88 related work 1981- 30 1999 36 51% 99 40% 21 33% 3 % 159 2.06 Decline 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3.00 1925- 1945 0 0% 1 2% 1 1% 0 0% 2 1.50 1946- 25 1964 29 13% 8 16% 22 20% 3 % 62 2.02 Vulgarity 1965- 15 directed at you 1980 103 46% 20 41% 45 41% 2 % 170 2.32 1981- 54 1999 89 40% 20 41% 43 39% 7 % 159 2.20 Decline 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3.00 Over use of text 1925- abbreviations/acr 1945 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2.00 onyms 1946- 7 12% 22 14% 24 17% 8 25 61 1.46
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 153
1964 % 1965- 58/14 47 1980 24 41% 73 46% 58 4 15 % 170 1.62 1981- 28 1999 27 47% 61 38% 62 43% 9 % 159 1.67 Decline 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2.00
Table 31
Graduate Student Workplace Incivility Other Behaviors
Interruptions, not using voicemail, constant paging. Spraying air fresheners to cover up odors. Ignoring a person as though she does not exist. Lack of tolerance of individual idiosyncrasies. Burping loud in public areas, smelly feet. Co-workers interrupting conversations of others. Two-faced, backstabbing conversation. Making assumptions about people before they start based on a phone conversation. Use of texting, or using Skype ™, in small office, leaving out me in conversation. Creating inappropriate relationships with clients. Sexual harassment. Hostile work environment office politics (with subtle hostility). Smoking out of designated area. Harassment (major). Not doing a good enough job because it's a man's world in the mortuary business. Filing false/borderline claims with management. Gossip, rumor mill. Not completing their portion of the assigned work or always at the last minute. Painting nails at work; or otherwise grooming at desk. Eating other people's food out of the lunchroom refrigerator. Invading your personal space. Damage to property. Swearing. Violence. Uncomfortable comments made towards clients. Assuming U.S. cultural norms of Non-U.S. staff. Being outed in front of a manager. Intoxication.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 154
Note. Behaviors are not listed in order of frequency or rank.
Research Question 7 Interview Qualitative Results
Question 1 from the questionnaire asked interviewees what behaviors they considered to be uncivil in their workplace. Noted behaviors from the interview responses viewed as common themes were highlighted by the researcher to support research question 7. One common theme of using profanity in the workplace was visibly triangulated from qualitative responses from question 2 of the working graduate workplace incivility survey, question 3 behavior 30 vulgarity directed at you, and several interview participant responses. Six interview participants in their own choice of words named profanity as an uncivil behavior in the workplace. GSTUDENT#3 stated,
―Profanity,‖ GSTUDENT#4 said, ―Use of curse words,‖ GSTUDENT#8 called out,
―Foul language,‖GSTUDENT#11 called it, ―Vile language/cursing‖, GSTUDENT#14, remarked, ―Foul language‖, and GSTUDENT#17 said, ―Cursing.‖
A second common theme of harassing behavior resonated from question 3 behavior nine harassing comments (racial, ethnic, gender) directed at you and question 3 behavior 10 harassing comments or behavior directed at you. Additional references of harassing behavior were detected in a few of the other additional behaviors shared by participants in table…as well as shared by a few of the interviewee responses.
GSTUDENT#1 referred to harassing behavior by stating, ―Physical confrontations, and verbal banter.‖ GSTUDENT#4 said, ―There‘s a lot of you know jokes that are more racial.‖ GSTUDENT#7 added, ―Anything that makes someone feel uncomfortable, sexist remarks, and racist remarks.‖
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 155
Summary of Research Question 7
Question 3 of the working graduate student survey listed 31 behaviors which working graduate students indicated if they thought the behavior instituted incivility in the workplace. Based from the working graduate student responses, each behavior was regarded as always or under some circumstances instituting incivility in the workplace.
Research question 1 addressed how working graduate students define civil and uncivil behavior in the workplace. The qualitative response detail of uncivil behaviors helped the researcher connect patterns drawn from the themes of the graduate student workplace incivility question 2, and qualitative responses from interviewees‘ testimonies to buttress research question 7.
Research Question 8
To what extent do working graduate students examine their own contributions to workplace incivility? Question 11 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey asked working graduate students Some managers argue that workplace civility is the responsibility of both employees and managers. Sometimes managers can do things (or not do things) that contribute to incivility in the workplace, such as distancing themselves from employees, lack of adequate resources to perform job responsibilities, or being overly permissive of employees disruptive behavior. Do you think that you might contribute to workplace incivility in any way? Participants marked their response using an "X" in the appropriate box for selections: yes, possibly, no, and unsure.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 156
Research Question 8 Quantitative Results
Three hundred and ninety-four working graduate students answered survey question 11. Eighty-five (22%) of the participants answered yes that they might contribute to workplace incivility. One hundred and forty (35%) of the participants said they possibly might contribute to workplace incivility. An almost equal percentage,
(34%) 135, of the participants chose no as their selection, and 34 (9%) said they were unsure as to whether they believed they might contribute to workplace incivility. Eight participants did not provide a selection to answer the question, and three participants marked more than one response selection.
A filtered view of responses by the gender variable indicated the number of female participants (n=51) 60% that said yes, was greater than the number of male participants (n=34) 40%. The response selection ―possibly‖ from the female participants summed (n=78) 55.7%. Male participants that selected the ―possibly response‖ equated
(n=62) 44.3%. The number of female participants that said that marked ―no‖ equaled
(n=86) 63.7%, and the number of male participants that said no totaled (n=49) 36.3%.
The total number of female participants (n=25) 73.5% stated they ―were unsure‖ and the total number of male participants (n=9) 26.5% answered as unsure.
Null hypothesis #15: There is no relationship between the gender of the research participant and belief that there is incivility in the workplace. A Pearson Product Moment
Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 32, generated a value of
.074 (α = 0.05; critical = .195). This relationship was not significant. The null hypothesis is not rejected, and there is no significant relationship between gender and belief that incivility exists in the participant‘s workplace.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 157
Table 32
Gender Indications of Contributing To Workplace Incivility
Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.0741926 R Square 0.0055045 Standard Error 0.9024059 Observations 393
Filtering the findings of question 11 to view only the generational data outputs showed none of the participants who are Traditionalists (1925-1945) answered yes that they might contribute to workplace incivility in any way. A few Baby Boomers (1946-
1964) participants, (n=7) 8.2%, answered yes. Both Generation X (1965-1980) participants, (n=39) 45.9%, and Generation Y (1981-1999) participants had the same exact number of yes responses. None of the Traditionalists participants said that they might possibly contribute to workplace incivility in any way. A number of Baby Boomer
(1946-1964) participants, (n=20) 14.3%, said they might possibly contribute to workplace incivility. Generation X (1965-1980) participants (n=58) made up 41.4% of the responses for possibly and Generation Y (1981-1999) participants (n=61) 43.6% had the most possibly responses than any of the other generations. One Traditionalist (1925-1945) participant, (n=1) 0.7%, said no he/she did not feel that he/she contributed to workplace incivility in any way. The largest number of responses from the Baby Boomer (1946-
1964) participants (n=32) 23.9% marked no rather than the other answer selections.
Likewise, the largest number of responses from the Generation X (1965-1980)
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 158 participants (n=65) 48.5% marked no more so than any of the other available responses.
The total number of no responses from the Generation Y (1981-1999) participants (n=36)
26.9% nearly matched the total number of yes responses from this generation. There were no selections marked from the Traditionalists (1925-1945) participants for the answer unsure. A couple of Baby Boomer (1946-1964) participants, (n=3) 8.8%, said they were unsure. Not many Generation X (1965-1980) participants, (n=10) 29.4%, said they were unsure, yet the Generation Y (1981-1999) participants, (n=21) 61.8%, had the most number of responses for unsure than any of the other generations.
Null hypothesis # 16: There is no relationship between the generation of the research participant and belief that there is incivility in the workplace. A Pearson Product
Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 33, generated a value of .087 (α = 0.05; critical = .195). This relationship was not significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there is no significant relationship between generations and belief that incivility exists in the participant‘s workplace.
Table 33
Generation Indications of Contributing To Workplace Incivility
Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.0873843 R Square 0.007636 Standard Error 0.9014384 Observations 393
Research Question 8 Qualitative Results
Question 11 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey included an open text box beneath the response selections marked other please elaborate for graduate students to share additional comments. Twenty-six working graduate students provided
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 159 hand written comments in addition to providing a marked response. A handful of the comments came from participants that answered yes, a couple of the comments were from participants that marked no, yet a little more than half of the 26 graduate students who wrote comments had answered that they were either unsure or acknowledge that they possibly might contribute to workplace incivility.
One participant that marked answered no provided justification as to why they do not believe that they might contribute to workplace incivility by simply writing, ―I mind my own business,‖ and another participant that answered no provided justification of their answer writing, ―I tend to focus on my daily task.‖ Of the handful of participants that said yes they do think that they might contribute to workplace incivility, one graduate student shared, ―I tend to get ‗very involved‘ in my own work duties that I may not handle employee issues timely or appropriately.‖ Another participant that answered yes openly commented, ―I am sometimes too trusting of employees during their duties.
Also some think of me more as a friend than their supervisor.‖ Participants that marked the response unsure or possibly also shared specific inadequacies about their own behavior. A participant recognized, ―I joke to heighten the mood. It may be taken the wrong way.‖ Another participant admitted, ―My voice carries, and I tend to speak loudly and laugh loud.‖ A third participant revealed, ―I work with a lot of males so if I for example wear a skirt—I expect a comment or two .‖
Another theme from some of the participants‘ comments called attention to the deficiencies of their work environment as being too lax to workplace incivility. A participant frankly shared, ―A lot of rules are not set in stone and the manager shows no interest and distances himself so I do what I want sometimes.‖ A second participant said,
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 160
―Possibly, by not taking more of a proactive stand on advising employees guilty of workplace incivility as inappropriate.‖ A third participant noted, ―I believe that we all are involved in one way or the other in something that could be improved.‖
Researcher Question 8 Interview Qualitative Results
Question 9 of the questionnaire asked interviewees Have you ever been approached by a co-worker or your management regarding a rude behavior or uncivil act you may have unintentionally instigated? If so, describe in detail. The researcher manually wrote out each detailed response from all of the interviewees in the table shown below.
GSTUDENT #2 did not provide enough detail to answer question nine.
Table 34
Interview Responses of Being Approached By A Co-Worker Or Management Regarding A Rude Behavior or Uncivil Act
Interviewee Interviewee Response Yes. Not that I can recall I mean I may have done stuff that some people have disagreed with. I tend to think of myself as pretty low key, slow to anger and I want to keep that. I‘ve probably been GSTUDENT #1 approached about things that other guys have wanted like about my management style or whatever but being rude is never one of them or uncivil I try not to do that.
Yep, and I‘ll tell you about that one. At the other company not the same company, I had made a comment on an African American GSTUDENT #3 girl‘s hair. I won‘t say oh your hair looks nice I‘ll say you look really nice today I will not point out. Never again. I will not compliment again because of this.
I have had my manager come and say, come to me and say when you get in a bad mood sometimes your answers are short. So you GSTUDENT #4 know I‘ve been approached by that and then you just have to go back and say I‘m sorry. It didn‘t affect you know, it wasn‘t because of you; I‘m sorry that I snapped at you, I was just in the mood.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 161
Oh sure going back to the temper thing. It wouldn‘t necessarily be GSTUDENT #5 unintentional I think it's being more intentional as to my frustration was building with my manager.
We had a okay oh shit what was I doing oh yeah when I had my guests I go and I‘d sing my McDonald‘s song I‘d go ―da-da-da-da- GSTUDENT #6 dah‖ and she goes SHUT UP!!! But that I think is the only one, oh flipping my hair. Employee would go god you just have to flip your hair!
Yes. I got suspended for rolling my eyes at a supervisor once.
Well it‘s annoying like honestly I participate in texting while we are in roll call and we like I don‘t know I mean one of my friends we‘ll GSTUDENT #7 just like make fun of whoever‘s talking while they are talking which is pretty rude. We keep it under the tables. But you know if we had our, if we had the volume on I mean that would really be obnoxious as much as we text each other during, during roll call.
Just kind of being a little bit more verbally loud than I should have been when we were in the cubes. You know toning it down a little GSTUDENT #8 bit I have a voice that booms no matter what so it‘s kind of hard to talk softly.
Okay let me think I know I have. Well when I was with Workplace ABC I had a very good branch assistant and I hired her and had known her for a long time and she felt that one time that I was GSTUDENT #9 mistreating her because of my friendship with her. That if she was someone else I wouldn‘t treat her that way. And I said, well I didn‘t really know I was. She was talking about me raising my voice and, and snapping at her.
Well I think it was just more of a thing kind of like a group thing that we, I mean like one of the girls is married the other one just got GSTUDENT in a relationship and they were comparing notes and then I chimed #10 in my two cents of when [person] and I were all happy and whatever and it just escalated there from there and the excitement and the volume level.
Yes. There again when I went out to California I was number one GSTUDENT under a lot of pressure there were people who disliked me instantly #11 because of their relationship with this other person. And I am a type A personality and a lot of people just get offended by that. And then
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 162
I had this situation where I was frustrated and I vented the frustration in sarcasm and the supervisor didn‘t like that at all and there were a few other people that didn‘t too.
No, but we ended up having a meeting because somebody else‘s GSTUDENT rude behavior and it was supposedly like this general thing but we #12 all pulled together just for it to be addressed.
GSTUDENT Yeah. Uh, so I don‘t I guess unintentional part would be that I didn‘t #13 know that he got offended by it.
GSTUDENT I can‘t recall any. #14 I am a practical joker just like the rest of them you know, they give GSTUDENT it to me I take it. I mean we, they put stuff on the board with my #15 picture on something, it doesn‘t bother me, and then I do the same thing with them.
GSTUDENT #16 No.
I asked the front desk lady to make cookies one day cause she GSTUDENT wasn‘t doing anything and she turned me in. I do get turned in a lot #17 for my tone of voice. Slamming the phone.
GSTUDENT #18 No.
Interview question 9 asked participants if they had ever been approached by a co- worker or their management regarding a rude behavior or uncivil act that they may have unintentionally instigated. Three interview participants replied no to the question with very short worded answers while the other 14 participants shared précised detail of their specific behavior and occurrence where their behavior was noticed by others. A recurring theme observed by the researcher from the majority of the responses seemed to involve the interview participants behaving in a manner that is considered to be loud.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 163
GSTUDENT#6 recalled an incident where workplace incivility greatly annoyed a co- worker by singing out loud. ―I‘d sing my McDonald‘s® song I‘d go ―da-da-da-da-dah‖ and she goes SHUT UP!!!‖ GSTUDENT#8 reflected to an incident of being loud in a cubicle environment, ―Being a little bit more verbally loud than I should have been when we were in the cubes. I have a voice that booms no matter what so it‘s kind of hard to talk softly.‖ GSTUDENT#9 disclosed the unawareness of a fellow co-worker being upset by workplace incivility, ―She was talking about me raising my voice and, and snapping at her.‖ GSTUDENT#10 noted the volume from a group of employees elevated as to an uncivil level from a discussion. ―We were all happy and whatever and it just escalated there from there and the excitement and the volume level.‖
A few participants noted how their individual occurrence of workplace incivility was brought to their attention by their management. GSTUDENT#4 revealed, ―I have had my manager come to me and say when you get in a bad mood sometimes your answers are short.‖ GSTUDENT#5 admitted to being uncivil as a result of their manager. ―Oh sure going back to the temper thing. It wouldn‘t necessarily be unintentional I think it's being more intentional as to my frustration was building with my manager.‖ GSTUDENT#11 said, ―I had this situation where I was frustrated and I vented the frustration in sarcasm and the supervisor didn‘t like that at all and there were a few other people that didn‘t too.‖
A final theme noted by the researcher from some of the interviewees responses entailed non verbal behaviors viewed by co workers as rude as well as behaviors that participants performed that they did not perceive as being uncivil until after time had passed. GSTUDENT#3 no longer feels comfortable complimenting co workers due to an
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 164 incident where a compliment was not viewed as receptive. ―I had made a comment on an
African American girl‘s hair. I won‘t say your hair looks nice, I‘ll say you look really nice today I will not point out. Never again. I will not compliment again because of this.‖
GSTUDENT#6 shared a nonverbal gesture that was viewed as rude by a coworker, ―Oh flipping my hair. [Employee] would go god you just have to flip your hair!!‖ Another non-verbal gesture by GSTUDENT#7 resulted with, ―Yes. I got suspended for rolling my eyes at a supervisor once.‖ Lastly, GSTUDENT#17 shared how corrective action resulted from, ―I asked the front desk lady to make cookies one day cause she wasn‘t doing anything and she turned me in. I do get turned in a lot for my tone of voice. Slamming the phone.‖
Summary of Research Question 8
The researcher analyzed quantitative data responses for question 11 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey which resulted in a small marginal percentage difference of two of the response selections. Thirty-four percent of participants viewed themselves as possibly contributing to workplace incivility and 33% of the participants viewed themselves as not contributing to workplace incivility. Several participants provided additional qualitative comments pinpointing the awareness of their own specific behaviors that may contribute to workplace incivility. A congruent theme of being loud noted from the comments derived from the qualitative comments from survey question 11 mirrored many of the qualitative interview responses. Additionally from the interview responses, many unambiguous examples provided insight of how certain behaviors whether placid or not may be noticed immediately as rude or subsequent to the incident as rude.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 165
Quantitative results confirmed for question 11 of the working graduate student incivility survey there was no relationship between the genders of the research participants and belief of contributing towards incivility in the workplace. A Pearson
Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 32, generated a value of .074 (α = 0.05; critical = .195). The relationship is not sizeable to be considered noteworthy. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there was no significant relationship between the research participants and belief of contributing towards incivility in the workplace.
Quantitative results confirmed question 11 of the working graduate student incivility survey there was no relationship among the four generations of the research participants and belief of contributing towards incivility in the workplace. A Pearson
Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated, and as noted in Table 33, generated a value of .087 (α = 0.05; critical = .195). The relationship is not sizeable to be considered significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected, and there was no significant relationship among the research participants and belief of contributing towards incivility in the workplace.
Research Question 9
How do working graduate students perceive the use of technology as contributing to workplace incivility? Question 14 of the graduate student workplace incivility survey asked working graduate students How has technology contributed towards incivility in the workplace? Please provide detail. A percentage total of 63% (n=254) of working graduate students provided a hand written response to question 14 of the graduate student
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 166 workplace incivility survey. The number of working graduate students that left question
14 blank amounted to a percentage of 37% (n=151).
Research Question 9 Qualitative Results
A few participants provided responses stating that they did not see technology as a contributor towards workplace incivility. One participant wrote, ―Incivility is an individual behavior. I really don't think technology has anything to do with it‖ and another participant stated, ―Technology comes with necessary safeguards so I do not believe it has contributed greatly to workplace incivility.‖ The vast majority of responses from the participants provided case and point references of how technology contributes to workplace incivility. The researcher examined each response using in a twofold approach. First the researcher highlighted and noted the types of technology/uses of technology participants specific are problematic and second, to identify subject areas appearing as recurring themes.
From the participants‘ responses the following references of technology mentioned were: Blackberries®, blogs, Bluetooth, cell phones, computers, e-mail,
Facebook ™, games on cell/smart phones, earphones, games on the Internet, instant messenger, the Internet, iPad, iPod, laptop computers, MySpace™, Skype™, social networking, surfing various web sites, texting, and video clips. Many the participants‘ responses included the type of technology along with a specific behavior or example as to how technology has contributed towards incivility in the workplace. The researcher condensed the 254 responses into 44 recurring themed examples and listed those examples in Table 35.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 167
Table 35
Graduate Student Examples of How Technology Contributes Towards Incivility In The Workplace
Causes too many distractions Very disruptive/ intensifies loudness People can't disconnect from technology instead of engaging with peers Causes employees to productivity Takes away the personalization interaction/face to face Allows one to be offensive/harassing Enabler for an easier way to trash talk/gossip/spread rumors Can create misinterpretation of communication Causes employees to become upset/frustrated/angry/hostile Not always used professionally Makes employees insensitive Allows for too much abbreviation. The need to use proper English is fading Makes people inaccessible Allows employees to act tough behind e-mails Employees are more lax in eCommunications Enhances employees lack of respect of management and co workers Can't convey the same message through e-mail that you can in person Can allow people to be nasty without being face to face Can cause incivility in and out of work Makes employees disconnected from conversation and input Constant access can be a burden People write e-mails before thinking Can't always read tone/emotion/expression Causes employees to be lazy Encourages non work related activities/surfing the web Difficult to monitor e-Incivility Provides more easier means for incivility to happen Employees using work technology for personal use instead of work use Creates a lack of social skills Internet searching with unrelated work activity Too much allowance for inappropriate content to circulate Misused to play games instead of working
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 168
Information can be shared without your permission Cannot allows filter unwanted communications Another way to ignore your manager Less relationships among workers Increases the temptation to be uncivil Creates short attention span, little follow through People respond differently when using technology verses in person Allows employees to choose to use technology to be anonymous E-mails can be nasty and limits confronting the employee in person Can put people in awkward positions Can lead to misunderstandings rather than face to face communication Causes employees to be reluctant to change
Note. Examples are not listed in order of frequency or rank.
One theme that was detected by the researcher from the participants‘ comments stressed how technology is viewed as distracting in many various forms. A few comments noted the perceptible loudness of cell phones. Unfortunately some of the comments indicating loud were void of detail as if loud was meant in reference to the volume level of a ring tone or other cell phone sound effects. Other testimonial comments regarding distracting focused on the proximity that employees keep connected to their cell/smart phone to the point of losing sense of reality and disregarding social interaction.
One working graduate student shared, ―Too easy to be distracted by cell phones, texts,
Blackberry® devices--people are not ‗present‘". Another participant wrote, ―The new cell phones have provided people with the ability to communicate with others at all times.‖
Lastly, one participant said, ―Blackberry® technology creates distractions for all as it is nearly impossible to escape when it‘s time to put it down.‖ One participant noted cell/smart phones are not the only technology medium that employees cannot disengage from. ―E-mails, cell phones, iPods. People cannot disconnect from technology on a social level.‖ One last comment from a participant regarding technology as distracting wrote,
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 169
―People may bring up video clips and then have people come over and watch the video and then talk about. This can be very distracting.‖
A second theme observed by the researcher‘s analysis of the working graduate students‘ comments regarding technology as a contributor of incivility in the workplace, concentrated upon the lack of productivity influenced by technology. Many blended comments scrutinized technology as a distraction to employees in several workplace settings. Some participants shared generalized statements about technology in general as being a distraction rather than singling out a specific form of technology. A working graduate student said, ―Technology provides a means for employees to spend more time on non-work related things.‖ Several other working graduate students shared identifiable examples and scenarios of how production loss occurs in the workplace. The misuse of the Internet as well as the ability to access the Internet during working hours was visible by a participant who shared, ―Computers create unproductive moments in cyber loafing".
Decrease in productivity.‖ Another participant shared a similar observation, ―Access to
Internet--dick around online on the clock.‖
Further analysis of the working graduate students‘ comments regarding the
Internet as sanction for employees being non- productive showed the Internet can serve as a navigation platform allowing employees to access games, social media, and other web pages during company time. One participant wrote, ―Facebook™--Internet usage for non-company reasons. This also limits productivity greatly.‖ A second participant shared, ―It [technology] has allowed employees to search Internet sites and use work time in other unproductive ways that are not work related,‖ and a third participant said, ―It
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 170
[technology] allows access to Internet surfing and games which enable people to access that rather than do work.‖
Some businesses and companies may have polices and software firewalls boundaries blocking access select web sites, or other restrictions in place to prevent employees from Internet usage. Aside from those employers that do or do not have barriers in place to prohibit or curb employees from the Internet, a few participants disclosed other means for staying connected. A participant shared, ―The instances I've come across have been from co-workers using the Internet on mobile phones, because the work Internet is restricted.‖ One participant admitted, ―For instance: All day at work today I was texting, e-mailing, and on the Web which are all part of today's technology.
Had I not been distracted with the ‗technology‘ I perhaps would have been more productive‖. A participant revealed, ―People today are very connected. I cannot go one day without checking e-mail or Facebook™. I could spend an entire day texting people.
It's really a huge distraction. I feel like we are constantly at the mercy of our technology.‖
Several responses from working graduate students reference eCommunications as a type of workforce incivility that creates a pipeline for sending, receiving, and posting information that may be seen as inappropriate and hurtful to employees as well as their employers. A participant wrote, ―E-mails and cell phones allow people to send nasty messages without being face to face.‖ Another participant wrote, ―Social networking has sometimes contributed because of employees spending too much time and posting inappropriate comments about their occupation or supervisor.‖ One participant noted,
―Nasty e-mails are sent more frequently because co-workers may not be confronted in person‖, and a similar response from another participant that wrote, ―I think a lot of
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 171
‗uncivil‘ activity occurs via e-mail as more often, people will respond differently in person.‖
Some eCommunications occur in a stealth-like manner as a means to purposely use anonymity as sounding board. Employees talking about other employees were some of the strategic reasons for using eCommunications noted from some of the participants‘ comments. Simply stated a participant wrote, ―[eCommunications] Allows for e-mails to be sent privately instead of saying things out loud.‖ One participant wrote, ―Much easier to gossip with chat or e-mail. Facebook™ can be used to ‗Let one in‘ on another's personal life and that person can use that information in an uncivil manner.‖ Another comment from a participant shared certain types of technology that are viewed as vehicles for grapevine eCommunications, ―Technology has furthered the possibilities for gossip and petty rumors, e.g. Facebook™, camera phones, texting, etc.‖ The use of instant messenger and e-mails a participant wrote, ―Allows for communication to take place without those around you knowing. Leads to a lot of ‗talking‘ about other co-workers.‖
Another participant noted, ―[instant messenger] allows others to talk about employees and stir up trouble‖, or as one participant put it bluntly, ―Use of e-mail, texting and
Skype™ to cut out unpopular members of staff…it's like the old ‗passing notes‘ in elementary school.‖
The lack of face-to-face communication and removal of personalization through many technology mediums were seen by some participants‘ responses as awkward, hurtful, and in some cases difficult to understand tone and significance of the message.
The feeling of awkwardness was voiced by one participant‘s written response stating,
―With text messaging and e-mails, people can be put in awkward situations. And
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 172 regardless of your involvement in a situation, sometimes I feel like I'm having pressured to voice my opinion on the matter.‖ Two examples using technology stated by a participant who said, ―E-mail has created a nice, convenient barrier to face-to-face contact. It is difficult to read emotion and also easy to confuse. Instant messenger is abrupt and its brevity can feel intrusive.‖ Another participant shared, ―There is a lack of face-to-face conversations which hurts because you cannot convey the same message through a call or e-mail that you could in a face-to-face conversation.‖ Lastly one participant commented, ―People don't talk face to face anymore. They rely on e-mail and text message. You can't read a person's expression through e-mail or text.‖
One final theme the researcher noted from the participant responses of technology as a contributor for workplace incivility highlighted the feelings of frustration and harassment which in some instances lead to anger. A working graduate student stated,
―Technology, such as e-mail and text messaging has contributed to workplace incivility because it gives offenders more mediums to create hostility.‖ Another working graduate student wrote, ―Frustration with inability to understand new programs, technology and resistance to change.‖ A similar comment of frustration by a participant who wrote,
―Employees not capable of working with technology are more frustrated on the job. Also technology has caused the loss of many jobs and caused tension among workers.‖
Comments revolving around anger were visible in the classroom and in the workplace.
One working graduate student said, ―Sometimes I get angry when a classmate text constantly during lectures,‖ and another working graduate student said, ―Cell phones, certain text messages one perceive may stem into incivility. Anger may become one the rise from that individual.‖
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 173
Research Question 9 Interview Qualitative Results
Collectively questions 2 and 3 of the questionnaire provided data in support of research question 9. Question 2 asked interviewees Do you believe that technology has negatively impacted civility in your workplace? If “yes”, how so? Question 3 asked interviewees Do you believe communicating through technology (i.e. blogs, cell phones, email, instant messaging, texting, tweeting) has had a negative impact on civility in your workplace? In what ways have these forms of technology negatively impacted your workplace? The researcher gathered all of the audio recorded responses from all interviewees and transcribed the responses. In some instances the researcher asked some of the interviewees‘ additional questions to establish clarity of understanding the response provided. The questions of the researcher are noted as bold text within some of interviewee responses in the table below.
Table 36
Interview Responses If Technology Has Negatively Impacted Civility in Your Workplace
Interviewee Interviewee Response I think it has. I think maybe not so much civility, people just don‘t communicate as well as they used to. You‘ll e-mail or text somebody and I really think it takes a lot of the interrelationships out of the office, it takes a lot of the GSTUDENT #1 friendships out. I know people that will e-mail offices right next door, I won‘t do that, and I hate to do that. It makes people lazier too you know instead of taking that extra step or somebody that wants to avoid, it makes it easy too.
Actually we had a rule we couldn‘t wear headsets in my GSTUDENT #2 previous job well I worked at this factory for eleven something
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 174
years. There was a rule you couldn‘t have a headset because of safety issues with the forklifts you could get run over by a forklift, but people got run over by forklifts before they allowed us to wear headsets.
We had so many fights because people were in everybody‘s business all day long. Finally one of our union contracts we got to wear headsets and then all of a sudden everything was very peaceful and wonderful because people were zoning in their own music and things got really nice after that, but then of course there were still a lot of uncivil people that just fed on starting fights and things.
So if you‘re talking about Blackberry® technology negatively impacting yes, even when we‘ve had meetings and some head honcho‘s in the room and they‘re doing this the whole time with their legs crossed you know and you‘re handling the meeting and then do you have anything to add and then he brings up GSTUDENT #3 things that were totally discussed. E-mails come across and they sometimes say things they shouldn‘t say and someone will half way talk about somebody and I don‘t like that at all. I take offense because I don‘t gossip I know that sounds bad but I don‘t.
I do, because people don‘t have to look at you in the face anymore. And I have noticed you get these e-mails from people who have that tone like I am too busy for you, I am rushed, I don‘t want to talk to you and then you get them on the phone and then they‘re like oh hi, how are you ? And it‘s just a whole another thing because they have to talk to you. And if you meet GSTUDENT #4 them in person then they‘re even nicer, and it‘s just oh I am looking at you now, I have to be nice. With the e-mails and the IMs‘ people are seeing those and you might get copied on one that you don‘t want to be on. The IMs‘ can get read by anybody. You know you have people shopping at work shopping online and they‘re calling insurance companies and doctors‘ offices and having those conversations.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 175
I think that people communication is a lot more quick text, voice mail, e-mail it‘s taken away the personal relationship aspect that people used to have in a working relationship and also personal relationships. I do I think what happens now is that the media gets so rich and we try to put more and more rich media more complicated problems in e-mail format or even in a phone call format or now like web conferences and you‘re talking about things that are extremely complex. You can‘t convey body language when you know the other person‘s looking at a PowerPoint and hearing your voice. Or not even certain if the person is paying attention? Right, you don‘t know and every once in a while GSTUDENT #5 you‘ve got to you know I‘m guilty too you know people will call my venders and call me and get sales presentations or something you know for some kind of new technology we‘re looking at and I‘ll be diligently writing down the minutes well they don‘t know that. All they hear is silence on the other end cause my phone‘s muted and I‘m listening just trying to take everything but see they never met me before. They don‘t know that I am an analytical type of person they don‘t know they can‘t see me sitting there writing down the notes. So I‘m sure that I am portraying incivility you know within that relationship and not really meaning to. So yeah technology negative impact I guess, yeah in my workplace that was a good example.
Yes. Just again with the instant messaging the Outlook instant messaging. There‘s too much gossiping there‘s too much spent back and forth and who did what and who‘s you know going to GSTUDENT #6 the bathroom how many times that was brought up with me. That‘s when I was doing my whole water diet and I‘ve quit I felt good now because they were watching how many times I was going to the bathroom.
I think that probably text messaging is a big one because I think that a lot of people text while they are talking to people and it shows a lack of interest in the conversation, or a little bit disrespectful to me you know sort of multi- tasking and showing obvious uninterested in what somebody is saying to you. It‘s hard to read somebody when they are texting obviously if GSTUDENT #7 they‘re distracted doing something else. It makes communication a little more difficult. Makes face to face communication you think more difficult or just communication in general more difficult? Face to face. You know if you got somebody looking down and you get a uh-huh, uh-uh.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 176
Well I think it‘s negatively impacted especially in meetings with phones going off during meetings and I sometimes thing some people do it just to draw attention to themselves make themselves look important. Understand that some of the GSTUDENT #8 managers, higher level managers need to take phone calls if there‘s emergency type things like that but, hey let‘s put them on silent. And I‘ve left mine on accidently on and it‘s rang, but I try to put it on silent whenever I can so I am not perfect in that recent sense either. So I think that‘s impacted our civility.
Yes, well there‘s a lot of rudeness that goes on. The use of cell phones, texting, and cell phone ringing or vibrating in the classroom. I know that goes on in the presence of my classroom. Last night a student had it on vibrate and I kept hearing it on vibrate sitting right next to her. It‘s quite annoying. Well I know I know that there have been many instances of where inappropriate websites were accessed plus there have been instances that I have been associated with. We found that the person that was supposed to be working was actually buying GSTUDENT #9 off the Internet you know selling his goods off of eBay Inc. that type of thing. So I mean I think it‘s more bad manners than incivility, but it‘s not good because you can get terminated for that stuff and which I‘ve seen them terminated for. Cause you‘re getting paid for working you‘re not doing your hobby.
I had an experience that one of the representatives was looking at pornography on the company computer. And as the story goes a window washer was viewing the whole thing from the outside and he reported that case I think to the ABC123.
I would say Facebook™ impacted it in the sense that you could have a comment just something simple can blow everything out of proportion. And like with our area like a lot of us are friends with our students on here and if they are stressed about either GSTUDENT #10 their academic advising or something and they put it up there. Especially my boss. My boss blew it way out of proportion. Like she wanted to fire some of the kids that work in our office because of them putting comments. Like really you know that‘s their relief they don‘t look at it how we look at it.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 177
Absolutely. Well the texting alone you know be it most of the time it was texting outside of work like the boyfriends, girlfriends what have you. I do understand that there are GSTUDENT #11 situations where keeping in contact with love ones is necessary, but I don‘t think it should be something that is like an eight hour basis. I feel that there are some positives to technology also, but there are some negatives.
Yes, the example with the phone because of the cell phone. You carry it around with you and I think not even in a work place but just in general people carrying the phone around is like people are more or less personal than they used to be. And where you see a person coming towards you and they‘re talking about something, but you‘re what in the world and you find out they got a Bluetooth in and it‘s like oh okay I‘m not crazy after all. GSTUDENT #12 Constantly on the computer doing non work related things. Shopping online, on Facebook™, and I had a lot of that in the previous position I was in. I think its negative it leads to less work production we‘re not getting as much work done if you‘re constantly shopping online or social media networks. I think it‘s useful in that way because you can get a message like e-mail there is some good and the bad yeah it does affect face to face communication.
I am going to have to say no because we keep a very tight reign and I am not even going to say personal technology because I think I would have to say it‘s impacted but not negatively but as far as negative impacted I don‘t think so because the city has access to our web and they keep a very, very tight reign if even what I would call an off color or gray joke or comment within an hour they are on top of it I don‘t know how they flag it, but I GSTUDENT #13 am going to tell you what if there is any and it must be by verbiage and I am going to tell you that you are going to get a nasty gram and you will be standing tall and you will be like they sent it to me and I didn‘t send it out you know and we are told that is why I have obviously my own personal e-mail I don‘t send shit from here so I don‘t think it is impacted negatively because nothing that we do is uncivil as far as technology.
I have some coworkers that think that everyone shares their political opinion and it doesn‘t matter who you vote for, but I would say for a while there, it has slowed down a little bit for a GSTUDENT #14 while I was getting two to three Obama bashing e-mails. This person or these people there are two people that seem to be pretty handy at this and I don‘t think they would come to you
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 178
and say it out loud but doing it over it the e-mail it gives them a little bit more bravery. They can just send button and it‘s like it is not me somebody else sent it me and I am just passing it on. And so I am to the point where most of the e-mails that come from these two people unless the subject line looks like it is something work related I don‘t even read them. I just delete them. My boss e-mails, everything you receive from him is in all caps, it is like he is screaming every time, and then also he sends out e-mails.
We did have an employee that got on a computer and went through ABC123 and tried to give information that they thought would be damaging to the city, which in all actuality it wasn‘t, but they obviously was using the computer, the website to stir up some trouble. As far as other technology I mean a lot of people GSTUDENT #15 use the avenues of the media and they use that a lot to bash and harass but the blogs are huge because they just don‘t stop. There is one person that will put five e-mail addresses and they will blog five times acting like they are five separate people just to say as much stuff to try look to make it look so much more you know worse than it really is.
Yes. We all get inappropriate e-mails and though they may be funny you know they really should not be sent to the workplace. And a lot of times it‘s an e-mail that could be talking about race of people, it could be talking about ages of people you know it‘s just discriminatory e-mails that are inappropriate. Do you find that e-mails such as this are sent out to a distribution or that GSTUDENT #16 it is selective as to who receives them? I think a lot of it is your own circle of people your circle of friends though they mean no harm it‘s still harmful information. How do you think it negatively impacts your workplace? I think it takes away from the time that you spend doing your actual work. That‘s an e-mail you could that‘s time you could spend actually being productive at work.
Yes. Facebook™. Everyone has a Facebook™ account except EMPLOYEE 1 and EMPLOYEE 2. So, I just, I took everybody off of Facebook™ because it was like I was tired of coming in GSTUDENT #17 and everybody like oh so you went to this or did this over the weekend? I mean it‘s just gossip in the workplace. So I think that definitely affects the workplace.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 179
Ignoring a peer is probably the most common behavior associated with being uncivil in my work place. Computers have enabled those who don‘t handle adversity or disagreements appropriately to simply avoid an individual other than by means of computer communication. In one sense this has enabled GSTUDENT #18 ABC123 to be more efficient in maintaining their reports and resulting in higher visibility as everything can be accomplished from their ABC123. On the other hand, an ABC123 has become his shelter from confronting disagreements appropriately, thus enabling small problems to fester to the point of where there is little to no communication face to face.
Nearly all of the interviewees were unanimous that technology has negatively impacted civility in their workplace. Only one interviewee was of the belief that technology had not negatively impacted their workplace due to strict monitoring of employee activities. GSTUDENT#13 stated, ―The city has access to our web and they keep a very, very, tight reign if even what I would call an off color or gray joke or comment within an hour they are on top of it.‖
Analysis of the response from the 18 interviewees that believed technology impacted civility in their workplace, several common themes from the responses emerged that paralleled many of the themes from the survey responses of the participants. Some of the examples from the interviewee responses corresponded with a select few number of the survey responses that were not grouped by the researcher as a recurring theme.
Additionally, a small number of isolated examples from some of the interviewee responses were not voiced within any of the survey responses.
A common theme between the survey responses and the interview responses included the references of technology. Blackberries®, blogs, Bluetooth, cell phones, computers, e-mail, Facebook ™, instant messenger, social networking, surfing various web sites, and texting , were the similar references named by both the survey participants and the
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 180 interview participants. Added references of technology mentioned by interview participants included: headsets and web conferences. The researcher identified several matching common themes from the interviewee comments that corresponded to many of the qualitative responses shared by the survey participants.
A second common theme noted by the researcher from several of the interviewee responses showed how technology hinders numerous of personal interfaces in the workplace. GSTUDENT#1 said, ―It [technology] takes a lot of the friendships out. I know people that will e-mail offices right next door.‖ GSTUDENT#5 expanded on this same theme stating, ―It‘s taken away the personal relationship aspect that people used to have in a working relationship and also personal relationship.‖ GSTUDENT #12 summed this theme adding, ―People are more or less personal than they used to be,‖ and in reference to the use of e-mail said, ―It does affect face-to-face communication.‖
A third common theme from many of the interviewees took aim at how technology is often distracting and disruptive in the workplace. GSTUDENT#7 spoke of employees using texting as, ―a little bit disrespectful.‖ GSTUDENT#7 provided additional detail about texting sharing that, ―It‘s hard to read somebody when they are texting obviously if they‘re distracted doing something else‖. GSTUDENT#8 spoke of Technology as
―negatively impacted especially in meetings with phone going off.‖ Again reference of cell phones were crux of negative uses of technology from GSTUDENT#9 who commented, ―Last night a student had it [cell phone] on vibrate and I kept hearing it on vibrate sitting right next to her. It‘s quite annoying!‖ GSTUDENT#12 shared some types of technology are distracting to the point of misleading how conversations are to be directed. ―Where you see a person coming towards you and they‘re talking about
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 181 something, but you‘re what in the world...and you find out they got a Bluetooth in and it‘s like oh okay I‘m not crazy after all.‖
A fourth common theme the researcher noticed pertained to several interviewees view how technology stages a variety of mediums to select from to gossip and find fault of employees in and out of the workplace. GSTUDENT#3 talked about the harms of e- mails. ―E-mails come across and they sometimes say things they shouldn‘t say and someone will half way talk about somebody and I don‘t like that at all.‖ GSTUDENT#6 discussed the inappropriate use of instant messenger. ―There‘s too much gossiping, there‘s too much [time] spent back and forth and who did what, and who‘s you know going to the bathroom how many times—that was brought up with me.‖ GSTUDENT#14 made note of the misuse of e-mails as means of creating churn in the workplace. ―For a while there I was getting two to three Obama bashing e-mails. Doing it over the e-mail gives them a little bit more bravery.‖ An additional testimony of bashing was shared by
GSTUDENT#15, ―A lot of people use the avenues of the media and they use that a lot to bash and harass, but the blogs are huge because they just don‘t stop.‖
Several working graduate students that were interviewed referenced Facebook™ as harming conduit. GSTUDENT#10 stated, ―I would say Facebook™ impacted it [civility in the workplace] in the sense you could have a comment just something simple can blow everything out of proportion.‖ GSTUDENT#15 shared, ―I just took everybody off of
Facebook™ because I was tired of coming in and everybody like oh so you went to this or did this over the weekend? I mean it‘s just gossip in the workplace.‖
A fifth common theme shared by many of the interview participants discussed how technology allows employees to either purpose, or indirectly ignore other employees.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 182
GSTUDENT#3 spoke of employees paying more attention to their Blackberry® in the meeting setting than the presenter. ―We‘ve had meetings and some head honcho‘s in the room and they‘re doing this [playing with their Blackberry®] the whole time.‖
GSTUDENT#5 spoke of employee assumptions when attending virtual meetings such as a webcast where face-to-face communication may not be available to all attendees. ―I‘ll be diligently writing down the minutes. All they hear is silence on the other end because my phone is muted. They don‘t know that I am an analytical type of person, they can‘t see me, so I‘m sure that I am portraying incivility.‖ GSTUDENT#6 pointed out, ―It‘s hard to read somebody when they are texting. You know if you got somebody looking down and you get an uh-huh, uh-huh.‖ GSTUDENT#18 said, ―Computers have enabled those who don‘t handle adversity or disagreements appropriately to simply avoid an individual other than by mean of computer communication.‖
The last and sixth theme seen within some of the interviewees responses talked openly about misusing technology for non work related personal needs. GSTUDENT#4 explicitly described, ―You know you have people shopping online and they‘re calling insurance companies and doctors‘ offices and having those conversations.‖
GSTUDENT#9 disclosed, ―We found that the person that was supposed to be working was actually buying off the Internet you know selling his goods on eBay Inc..‖
GSTUDENT#9 also shared of another incident where misuse of technology in the workplace was visible external peril that was reported back to the employer. ―I had an experience that one of the representatives was looking at pornography on the company computer….a window washer was viewing the whole thing from the outside and he reported the case to COMPANY_XYZ.‖ GSTUDENT#11 spoke of the negative use of
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 183 texting during working hours. ―I do understand that there are situations where keeping in contact with love ones is necessary, but I don‘t think it should be something that is like an eight hour basis.‖ GSTUDENT#12 highlighted a number of employee problematic technology uses in the workplace. ―Constantly on the computer doing non work related things. Shopping online, Facebook™…I think it‘s negative and leads to less work production.‖
In review of the interviewee responses for interview question 3, the researcher observed several themes replicated from participant responses shared within interview question 2. Question 3 responses provided the researcher additional breadth of the negative technology sightings in the workplace which in certain instances obstruct quite a few methods of communication, face-to-face interactions, and productivity. The table below includes interview responses. Similar to the table format for interview question 2, bold font indicates where the researched asked the interviewee additional questions for clarification.
Table 37
Interview Responses of Communicating Through Technology Negatively Impacting Civility in the Workplace
Interviewee Interviewee Response Probably, it takes some of the interaction between employees away. It makes people shorter, it just all at once an answer and you don‘t get to know this person. I do think it has a negative GSTUDENT #1 impact I mean it‘s got a place in the workplace by all means technology does make life better but I think it does takes the communication factor away from a lot of folks.
GSTUDENT #2 No.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 184
Oh I think e-mails have a negative. Cell phones I think are great, texting it loses the personality especially in the workplace cause if you‘re a coworker and I e-mailed you or texted you with what are you doing today or did I see you come in today, you working from home today, you could take that on the other hand as oh you‘re working from home today! It loses that person ability. Texting and e-mail I think have been over exploded in the workplace and lost the person personable behind it. That‘s from high up to all the way down. Both have negative impacts if you really want to get something across in the company I think especially if you want to speak to somebody. Instant messaging I GSTUDENT #3 turn mine off. I turn it off for three different reasons. The first one is my job is concentrated time and I‘m concentrating on something and that [chiming] then it will show up it flashes down at the bottom so for that reason I turn it off because people bug you all the time don‘t matter what you are doing. Secondly, I‘ve learned how to make it so that you don‘t know that I‘m online. So half the time I‘m online you don‘t know I‘m online and I do that so people won‘t bother me. I just wish instant messaging does not exist personally I turn it off because it‘s too bothersome for me. I think my biggest issue with all technology is the person in the workplace is the person ability that is gone lost in words. If I handed you a document even you know my voice is gone.
Well with the instant messaging people just don‘t take it as seriously it‘s not professional you can say whatever you want. Cell phones people will bring them to meetings and I mean mine‘s in my purse and this isn‘t really even like a work meeting but you know, you will have people in meetings just typing away uh huh, yeah I totally know you are not listening to me. They‘ll oh I have to take this phone call and walk out and it‘s like you know their eight year old is telling them what they did that day and you can hear them because they‘re right there on their cell phone. The e-mailing of people you know do their short tone, you know shortened tone you know. GSTUDENT #4 And then you know everyone brings their laptop and someone talking yep I am totally listening while I am typing like you are checking e-mails, you are looking at your ticket queue, like you are doing things you are not supposed to. The taping doesn‘t bother me too much when we‘re in the office but if you are in a meeting and you are trying to listen to the speaker and you‘ve got taping around you, you kind of get distracted looking to see and you know that‘s rude to them and to you cause then you are missing what the presenter is talking about, and then ring tones because people don‘t think about what ring tones they put on and then they turn them up really loud
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 185
cause they can‘t hear them and then the entire office can hear the phone ring. So say if you are in your cube and you are talking to a customer and then this guy‘s cell phone rings, it‘s so loud they can hear it and they‘re thinking that you‘re over here paying attention to your phone instead of helping them. Also you have people with radios; everyone plays it on their computer, they will pull up whatever radio station they normally listen to. You‘ve got you know, and I‘m, I‘m one of those people who listens to rock off and the next cube over and it is kind of like competing like who‘s is loudest right now and you‘ve got the girl down the way that listens to jazz.
I‘ll give you an example from my last workplace I worked uh I was uh import agent import export agent at ABC123. Facebook™ was never blocked and you know just the loss of productivity and you start seeing these click relationships form within Facebook™ pages. We started seeing these little clicks kind of form on Facebook™ but then over and above that they started talking about co-workers. You know and not necessarily directly negative but just comments that weren‘t negative per se, but they weren‘t necessarily a positive. And they‘re trying to establish that personal relationship through Facebook™ or GSTUDENT #5 through some kind of social media and yeah it really came down to being distracting and it came down to being counterproductive. Our manager was probably the biggest abuser of it too. But when I was there like doing my stuff I‘d look over and the manger of imports or the manager of the area export requirement was just sitting there looking at nude sites doing Facebook™. Facebook™ finally got blocked that‘s why I bring up that because we started doing some numbers and our IT department started running some things and they figured out you know we‘re having a 20% production decrease due to just Facebook™ alone.
Um yes obviously but I think mainly is the trust. E-mail yes. Instant messaging yes. Texting I‘m just cross that off and that would be no. Any others not listed here? I would actually scan their Facebook™ page to see if there were talking about anybody and they did not so. There‘s something called Facebook Lite ™ I GSTUDENT #6 never knew of that apparently if you can‘t access Facebook™ from your work computer Facebook Lite™ you have a bigger chance of getting to that. That‘s basically it, relationships were broken because of that you know with trust issues, communicating with one another was shot.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 186
I think so like blogs especially. Blogs because well it‘s people open themselves up to sharing their personal life and whatever is going on with them where everybody can see it and if it‘s not comments made directly to the person I mean people talk about what to do read so and so‘s Facebook™ status or whatever it‘s usually behind, behind their back I mean but people obviously will put themselves up to that. Does certainly does give that person another medium to use. Instant messaging we have instant messaging a lot of times management gets onto us about what we say in instant messaging because people can read it and people can go talk about what we write on instant messaging. Cell phones right same as texting I mean having your cell phone ring GSTUDENT #7 and not you know not trying you know we‘ve got ABC123 at the beginning and end and you know people won‘t turn their cell phones off which is really obnoxious. I mean obviously people aren‘t getting there and doing what we are there to do and go home for the day or go you know start working for the day or whatever. It‘s a distraction just not necessary to even answer your phone during role. So there is no reason to have your phone on. Well it‘s annoying like honestly I participate in texting while we are in ABC123 and one of my friends we‘ll just like you know make fun of whoever‘s talking while they are talking which is pretty rude. We keep it under the tables. If we had the volume on I mean that would really be obnoxious as much as we text each other during, during roll call.
I mean I was in a meeting today where one of the managers was using their Blackberry® another manager was talking and kind of aiming the questions at him and he was totally oblivious to it.
The only thing that bothers me are e-mails when someone sends out a congratulations to somebody and copies a whole bunch of people to let them know that this person everybody has to send back to all. I don‘t want to know whether or not you‘re responding and telling him congratulations and that I‘m not. I understand the first e-mail was just the announcement. GSTUDENT #8 Understand that, but if you are going to respond back just hit reply. The other thing is too, and I haven‘t had this happen too often, but when there is a problem when someone has a problem with you or there‘s an issue with you and I‘m not talking maybe personal but something on the job that you are doing or something that you have an issue they‘ll copy your manager right away instead of first dealing with you it‘s easy just to type an e-mail and copy a manager and send it cause I just had that recently something came up and they something I had did wasn‘t right or something or they needed something and it was like
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 187
boom copy my manager right off bat. I mean I have had to use e- mails where I have had to get the managers involved but it was usually it‘s normally after I‘ve already used up all the other avenues I have to get the person to do what needs to be done or not do you know I‘ve had talks with them, I‘ve sent e-mails and finally it‘s like boom this is the fourth e-mail as you can see by the trail but I‘ve got you now.
Well I think the when all that technology is used for the betterment of the company; it‘s fine. But people‘s morals, ethics, are all over the place. And um I also believe that‘s one problem but even a bigger problem though is sometimes when you write when you put something in writing you can‘t never get it back and you don‘t have that personal touch that warm and fuzzy feeling you get from talking to someone either on the phone or eyeball to eyeball so it has brought about a lot of perhaps unintentional incivility as a result of how the tone is interpreted by the person receiving the information.
But yeah technology has really created a problem for the workplace. And you know there‘s lots of issues of privacy that GSTUDENT #9 they have to be concerned about. Especially in the HR areas and then also in the medical world hospitals, doctors offices, clinics and that kind of thing you have to be extremely careful of who sees what. And you know we‘ve heard so many stories about uh private information being found in dumpsters behind businesses and so forth so yeah there‘s, there‘s too much incivility going on. And also the technology has created a real haven for hackers and these guys are really good and they can get in and do a lot of things and you know wreck a checking account, selling your name and that type of thing so and you know it‘s kind of can‘t do without it. But you know there needs to be a technology come down where the websites cannot be so or not the websites but the providers cannot be so easily accessed.
I think that texting and e-mail have kind of hindered the workplace only because going back to my previous boss she would tell us if you are going to be sick or if you are going to be late it‘s okay to text me. Which was good if you‘re sick early GSTUDENT morning you could let her know. Then whenever it got to the #10 point where she would forget we were supposed to follow up with an e-mail to her so it would remind her. So in my mind it kind of makes it less casual but that…I just look at that as its more protection like I said I wasn‘t going to be here this day and this is what happened it wasn‘t my fault.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 188
I would say that the e-mails and the instant messaging have an impact on grapevine. I think it‘s used a lot in the grapevine and even harassing people. I have seen not personally, but I have seen e-mail that was not meant to be offensive became offensive to the person who received it. I would have to say the same for texting because I was virtually fired. You know and that‘s literally how it GSTUDENT happened. I find texting more good than bad. But where I found #11 the texting vial was I worked in a call center and we are supposed to be active listening to the other person on the end of the phone and people are texting while they‘re listening to them and I‘m sorry that is a person on the other end of that phone that is trying to get something out of you and yes you may be able to multi task, but that‘s not the time to do it.
GSTUDENT Yes it does negatively impact and specifically the e-mail #12 situation.
I think it has impacted negatively and I will tell you why, people say through e-mails you can feel or sense attitude or and I think you but I think a lot of that is self-perception and what relationship you have with that person and I think because we are doing more e-mail and maybe texting because when we get an incident guys don‘t talk that much on the phone it would be more text than anything else. So I believe it has negatively impacted us because you are seeing you know people will say well I thought you meant this in an e-mail when in reality that you meant this. Two verses two verses two verses two. And so I think it has reduced the time that we spend together face to face and I know that I had a problem with another employee a couple weeks ago on this very thing that he was e-mail saying something to one of GSTUDENT my guys and we both took it different than he had sent out and so #13 you know I had to you know call him and tell him that we need to have a sit down because what you are doing is definitely not going work with you know over an e-mail and when we sat down and him and I have had a kind of a colorful past so it was just straight went to shitty and he was like that is not what I am talking about at all I am like well this is the way he took it this is the way I took it and he has a case of the ass so we had to call him in and sit him down and talk to him and hey this is not what he meant this is what he meant and so yeah I guess in that sense you know nothing major but as far just the incivility part having negative impact on e-mails you don‘t have the personal contact face to face I can‘t study your you know nonverbal cues to see. So yeah that does create problems because of the lack of
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 189
communication, and there are e-mails getting sent but they are not getting sent and I got face time and it‘s not happening. What about e-mails where someone is not included on a distribution list? We have and they are leaving people out accidentally, and so therefore that information gets disseminated throughout the whole department and it gets piece mailed and I heard this and I heard that, well I need to hear the whole story, so yeah it does create conflict.
I would say overall they‘ve not had a negative impact. If I had to say negative verses positive I would definitely say they have had a positive impact. I‘m the only female in our area I know that when I was in a different area, there was this one lady who was getting constant cell phone calls and she‘d get up and walk if she GSTUDENT didn‘t want to talk in front of everybody and that was fine it was #14 always so obvious that she was getting so many personal phone calls, but so what do you do. But um the only thing that I would mention is that lack of attention in meetings because people are constantly using their Blackberries. They are constantly are trying to do more than one thing at a time.
The biggest thing that comes to mind is that when you are trying to convey a message and you do it through electronic resources the human factor is not involved. It‘s more of just a generic factor. What happens is it gets miss communicated uh misinterpreted? And even though it is a convenience it really can sometimes be very negative because people think that your tone is maybe they think it is aggressive when it is not. Or so it really does not convey the message well. I recently had an e-mail with GSTUDENT my boss that he took offence to it and as I explained the situation #15 he was fine, but just the way that he read it he interpreted it as being an aggressive e-mail when it really was not, it was more of a concerned e-mail. So I think that the more we get away from face to face human contact and relationships through electronic media the further displaced we are I think from, from society and just from relationships, interpersonal relationships and just you know even though it is convenient it‘s often misrepresented, miss communicated.
I would say yes to the first question and it‘s really the same the same thing you know negative poor choice in sending GSTUDENT information that is discriminatory and also you could be in a #16 meeting and somebody‘s uh Blackberry® goes off they‘re constantly checking it that is very rude to the presenter or to anybody who‘s conducting the meeting. Cell phones having to
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 190
answer your cell phone in the middle of a meeting. I have seen people texting in the middle of a meeting which is rude. Internet access or Facebook™? Yeah I think you know when you use your own personal computer at work to access Facebook ™ if you cannot access Facebook™ on the actual work computer that‘s a signal that you really should not access it on your own personal computer while you‘re at work. It‘s really going around the policy. At your work can you actually access Facebook™ or is there a restriction warning that appears? Yes. I get warnings all the time when I try to go to various websites, but not porn that‘s, it‘s termination. On my lunch hour I will do some online shopping.
Um I don‘t want people knowing what I am doing on the GSTUDENT weekends so I learned that if I want to maintain a private life I #17 needed to stay off the Facebook™ and I have shared too much information.
I don‘t see where other technology has had a negative impact on GSTUDENT civility in my work place. Although social networking is a hot #18 topic for ABC123 with my agency seem to be keeping their civility towards each other in check.
In review of the responses from the interviewees for interview question 3, the researcher detected familiar technologies and technology types as mentioned within responses from interview question 2. There were a few additional technology references mentioned by a few of the interviewees within some of the responses. The use of accessing radio stations through the Internet to play music through an employee‘s computer, Facebook Lite™, and employees bringing their personal computers to work were a few of the additional types of technologies not visible by the researcher within any of the previous responses from the interviewees.
Of the 18 interviewees, all but three participants stated that they do believe communicating through technology has had a negative impact on civility in their workplace. Although three participants said they didn‘t believe communicating through
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 191 technology necessarily had a negative impact, two of the three participants did provide mention of at least one awareness regarding the use of technology that they found to be a potential concern. Within the 15 participant responses emerged five patterned themes of negative impacts of employees communicating through technology.
The first theme sheds light of employees noticing the growing loss of personal interfaces in the workplace. GSTUDENT#1 said, ―It [technology] takes some of the interaction between employees away.‖ GSTUDENT#2 added, ―Texting and e-mail I think have been over exploded in the workplace and lost the person personable behind it.‖ GSTUDENT#8 specifically shared the voids of eCommunications that are only visible in face-to-face interactions. ―You don‘t have that personal touch, that warm and fuzzy feeling you get from talking to someone either on the phone or eyeball to eyeball.‖
GSTUDENT#15 expanded upon the growing distance of personal contact. ―The more we get away from face-to-face human contact and relationships through electronic media the further displaced we are I think from society and just from interpersonal relationships.‖
GSTUDENT#3 provided a personal feeling of how technology negatively impacts the workplace. ―I think my biggest issue with all technology is the person in the workplace is the personality that is gone lost in words. If I handed you a document even you know my voice is gone.‖
A second theme concerns employees‘ use of technology negatively to contribute towards gossiping and divulging too much personal information. GSTUDENT#7 pinpointed blogs as having a negative impact on civility in the workplace. ―Blogs because well it‘s people open themselves up to sharing their personal life.‖ GSTUDENT#7 also admitting to using texting as a form of gossiping. ―Honestly, I participate in texting while
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 192 we are in ABC123 and one of my friend‘s we‘ll just you know make fun of whoever‘s talking while they are talking which is pretty rude.‖ GSTUDENT#11 commented, ―I would say the e-mails and the instant messaging has an impact on grapevine.‖
GSTUDENT#17 stated, ―I learned if I want to maintain a private life, I need to stay off the Facebook™.‖
Another theme arose from the comments of many interviewees that viewed technology as being distracting and noisy. GSTUDENT#3 who has instant messenger in their workplace chooses not to use it. ―I‘m concentrating on something and that [chiming] then it will show up, it flashes down at the bottom so for that reason I turn mine off because people bug you all the time.‖ GSTUDENT#4 commented about the competing noise of radios playing in a cubicle environment. ―I‘m one of those people who listens to rock, in the next cube over it is kind of like competing like whose is the loudest right now and you‘ve got the girl down that way that listens to jazz.‖ GSTUDENT#7 spoke of the loudness of cell phones. ―People who won‘t turn their cell phones off which is really obnoxious.‖ GSTUDENT#16 also spoke of the noise of technology in meetings.
―Blackberry® goes off and they‘re constantly checking it; that is very rude and having to answer your cell phone in the middle of a meeting.‖
Several participants spoke of how eCommunications in the workplace often cause misinterpretations of how messages are to be read and received by other employees.
GSTUDENT#8 spoke about a mishap incident of using e-mail. ―When someone sends out a congratulations to somebody and copies a whole bunch of people. Then this person has to send it back to all.‖ GSTUDENT#13 shared, ―I believe it [technology] has negatively impacted us because you are seeing you know people will say well I thought
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 193 you meant this in an e-mail when in reality you meant .‖ GSTUDENT#15 also shared the same view as GSTUDENT#14 regarding some misconstrued e-mails. ―The biggest thing that comes to mind is that when you are trying to convey a message and you do it through electronic resources…what happens is it gets miss communicated; misinterpreted.‖
The last theme observed by the researcher centered on the loss of productivity observed by many of the participants as well as how employees will find ways to stay connected to their technology. GSTUDENT#4 recalled an incident of an employee‘s cell phone ringing during a meeting and excusing oneself to leave the room to take the call,
―Oh, I have to take this phone call and will walk out and it‘s like their eight year old telling them what they did that day and you can hear them because they‘re right there.‖
GSTUDENT#5 spoke of employees accessing Facebook™ during working hours.
―Facebook™ was never blocked and just the loss of productivity and you start seeing these click relationships form within Facebook™ pages. Our manager was probably the biggest abuser of it too—looking at nude sites doing Facebook™. GSTUDENT#6 noted within their workplace, employees found a workaround solution to access Facebook™ if the site is inaccessible from a work computer. ―There‘s something called Facebook
Lite™…if you can‘t access Facebook™ from your work computer.‖ GSTUDENT#16 provided insight of employees using other technology in the workplace to access
Facebook™. ―I think when you use your own computer at work to access Facebook™ if you cannot access Facebook™ on the actual work computer that‘s a signal that you really should not access it. It‘s really going around the policy.‖ Lastly, GSTUDENT#5 reported, ―Facebook™ finally got blocked. They [IT] figured out we‘re having a 20% production decrease due to just Facebook™ alone.‖
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 194
Summary of Research Question 9
Qualitative responses from the participants who provided hand written comments to question 14 of the survey shared insight as to what types of technology are utilized in many workplaces today. While some participants shared benefits of using technology, countless hand written demonstrations of how technology is used in a negative matter reverberated as common themes validated by many of the interview participants testimonies. There were significant similarities in the number of adults who perceive the use of technology as uncivil behavior and the number of adults who do not, among working adults enrolled in various accelerated graduate degree programs.
Research Question 10
1. How (and if) do the answers to RQ 1-9 vary for working graduate students of
different demographic groups (academic discipline, workplace environment,
supervisory role, age, gender, ethnicity, etc.)?
Research Question 10 Quantitative Results
Research Question 1
Research question 1 asked working graduate students to define civil and uncivil behavior in the workplace. Questions 1 and 2 from the survey instrument generated qualitative explanations from participants for both civil and uncivil definitions. The responses did not produce quantitative statistics, Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 195
Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked working graduate students to what extent they perceive incivility as a growing problem in the workplace. Question 6 from the graduate student workplace incivility survey asked working graduate students if they believed workplace incivility was on the rise, about the same as previous years, or on the decline. The responses produced a combination of both quantitative and qualitative results.
Examination of regression analysis for gender and generation did not produce significant differences. Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined for statistical relationships. Qualitative responses from the interviewees did not generate demographic data for comparison.
Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked working graduate students in what ways do they relate incivility in their workplace to job satisfaction. Quantitative data from question 12 from the graduate student workplace incivility survey asked working graduate student to indicate how incivility in the workplace relates to job satisfaction. Examination of regression analysis for gender and generation did not produce significant differences.
Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined for statistical relationships. Qualitative responses from the interviewees did not generate demographic data for comparison.
Research Question 4
Research question 4 asked working graduate students in what ways do they perceive incivility as related to their productivity in their workplace. Question 13 from the survey asked working graduate students to indicate how likely incivility is related to
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 196 productivity of employees and their workplace. There were no qualitative survey participant responses collected from question 13 of the survey. Examination of regression analysis for gender and generation did not produce significant differences.
Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined for statistical relationships. Qualitative responses from the interviewees did not generate demographic data for comparison.
Research Question 5
Research question 5 asked working graduate students how they perceive their effectiveness in prevention and response to workplace incivility. Two questions from the working graduate student workplace incivility survey provided quantitative data to support this question. Question 7 asked working graduate students how much training they had in learning how to deal with workplace incivility. Additionally, question 8 asked working graduate students how prepared they feel in dealing with workplace incivility.
There were no qualitative survey participant responses collected for question 7 or 8.
Examination of regression analysis for gender and generation did not produce significant differences. Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined for statistical relationships. Qualitative responses from the interviewees did not generate demographic data for comparison.
Research Question 6
Research question 6 asked working graduate students how they perceive their employers effectiveness in prevention and response to workplace incivility. Questions 9 and 10 from the graduate workplace incivility survey generated quantitative data.
Question 9 asked working graduate students if their employer has a comprehensive policy
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 197 addressing workplace incivility and question 10 asked if their employer has a comprehensive workplace incivility policy how effective do they believe the policy is.
There were no qualitative survey participant responses collected for question 9 or 10.
Examination of regression analysis for gender and generation did not produce significant differences. Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined for statistical relationships. Qualitative responses from the interviewees did not generate demographic data for comparison.
Research Question 7
Research question 7 asked working graduate students what types of behaviors (verbal
/non-verbal) do they perceive as contributing to a toxic workplace. Question 3 of the survey asked working graduate students to mark their indication if a behavior institutes incivility in the workplace. Examination of regression analysis for gender and generation did not produce significant differences. Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined for statistical relationships. Qualitative responses from the interviewees did not generate demographic data for comparison.
Research Question 8
Research question 8 asked working graduate students to what extent do they examine their own contributions to workplace incivility. Question 11 from the survey asked working graduate students if they think that they might contribute to workplace incivility in any way. Examination of regression analysis for gender and generation did not produce significant differences. Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined for statistical relationships. Qualitative responses from the interviewees did not generate demographic data for comparison.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 198
Research Question 9
Research question 9 asked working graduate students how they perceive the use of technology as contributing to workplace incivility. Question 14 from the graduate student workplace incivility survey provided working graduate students an open text box to hand write their response. Participants provided only qualitative responses which were not examined for differentiation among the demographic groups. Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined for statistical relationships. Qualitative responses from the interviewees did not generate demographic data for comparison.
Research Question 10 Qualitative Results
Examination of regression analysis for gender and generation for research questions one through nine did not produce significant differences. Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined for statistical relationships. Qualitative responses from the interviewees did not generate demographic data for comparison.
Research Question 10 Interview Qualitative Results
Within the qualitative responses from the interview participants there was an abundance of broad detail. The researcher did not collect demographic information from each of the interview participants and was not able to determine if there were differences within the answers each interview question. Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined for statistical relationships. Qualitative responses from the interviewees did not generate demographic data for comparison.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 199
Research Question 1
Question 1 from the interview questionnaire asked interviewees what behaviors they considered to be uncivil in their workplace. There was not a question included in the questionnaire that asked interviewees what behaviors they considered to be civil.
Responses from each of the interviewees only yield quantitative answers that were not examined for demographic differences among the participants. Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined for statistical relationships. Qualitative responses from the interviewees did not generate demographic data for comparison.
Research Question 2
Question 11 from the interview questionnaire asked interviewees if they believed that incivility is a problem in their workplace. Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined for statistical relationships. Qualitative responses from the interviewees did not generate demographic data for comparison.
Research Question 3
Question 7 from the interview questionnaire asked interviewees if they changed jobs or quit due to incivility. Responses from each of the interviewees only yield quantitative answers that were not examined for demographic differences among the participants. Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined for statistical relationships. Qualitative responses from the interviewees did not generate demographic data for comparison.
Research Question 4
There was not a specific questionnaire question that asked interviewees to perceive incivility as related to their productivity in their workplace. Responses from
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 200 each of the interviewees only yield quantitative answers that were not examined for demographic differences among the participants. Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined for statistical relationships. Qualitative responses from the interviewees did not generate demographic data for comparison.
Research Question 5
Question 13 from the interview questionnaire asked interviewees what they are currently doing about addressing rude behavior and incivility in their workplace.
Responses from each of the interviewees only yield quantitative answers that were not examined for demographic differences among the participants. Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined for statistical relationships. Qualitative responses from the interviewees did not generate demographic data for comparison.
Research Question 6
Question 5 from the interview questionnaire asked interviewees if they believed that their management would support them if they reported an incident(s) of incivility.
Responses from each of the interviewees only yield quantitative answers that were not examined for demographic differences among the participants. Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined for statistical relationships. Qualitative responses from the interviewees did not generate demographic data for comparison.
Research Question 7
Question 1 from the interview questionnaire asked interviewees what behaviors do they consider to be uncivil in their workplace. Responses from each of the interviewees only yield quantitative answers that were not examined for demographic differences among the participants. Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 201 for statistical relationships. Qualitative responses from the interviewees did not generate demographic data for comparison.
Research Question 8
Question 9 from the interview questionnaire asked interviewees if they have ever been approached by a co-worker or their management regarding a rude behavior or uncivil act they may have unintentionally instigated. Responses from each of the interviewees only yield quantitative answers that were not examined for demographic differences among the participants. Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined for statistical relationships. Qualitative responses from the interviewees did not generate demographic data for comparison.
Research Question 9
Question 2 from the interview questionnaire asked interviewees if they believe that technology has negatively impacted civility in your workplace, and question 3 from the interview questionnaire asked interviewees if they believe communicating through technology (i.e. blogs, cell phones, e-mail, instant messaging, texting, tweeting) has had a negative impact on civility in their workplace and in what ways have these forms of technology negatively impacted their workplace. Responses from each of the interviewees only yielded quantitative answers that were not examined for demographic differences among the participants. Differentiation among the demographic groups was not examined for statistical relationships. Qualitative responses from the interviewees did not generate demographic data for comparison.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 202
Summary of Research Question 10
Regression analysis did not produce significant relationships between gender and among the four generations of the research participants. Descriptive statistics did produce supportive data to show percentage differences among gender, academic discipline, supervisory role, generation, and ethnicity. Supporting data to show similarities and differences for research participants‘ work environment was not visible to the researcher through quantitative data. Some participants through quantitative responses communicated of office environments including cubicles, offices, or general areas accessible by employees in the workplace setting.
Summary
Data Analysis and findings from within this chapter began with an overview of the working graduate student population and demographic figures and number for 405 working graduate students who participated in the graduate workplace incivility survey.
Consequential to the collection of survey data, 18 working graduate students convened with the researcher to complete an interview questionnaire discussion. Composed definitions from the participants shaped what signified civil and uncivil behavior in the workplace. The use of descriptive statistics exposed many verbal and non-verbal behaviors instituting incivility in the workplace as quite problematic. Participants‘ responses contributed additional unidentifiable uncivil behaviors not perceived in literature. Data analysis of quantitative statistics did not result in a display of visible strong significant differences among gender and generation for handling and preventative standards with workplace incivility.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 203
Open dialogue from participant interviews allowed the researcher to access a greater awareness of the multiple causes and effects of incivility in the workplace unforeseen from merely just the quantitative results of this study. Unguarded conversations with interview participants revealed extremely straightforward testimony of the perils incivility has brought upon employees and their employers. Lastly, examination of the qualitative data provided the researcher a comprehensive vision of several recurring common themes and the great need to curb incivility and restore civility in the workplace.
The focus of Chapter 5 outlines an overview of the design structure, design limitations of the study, notable findings and data results, significant themes and observations. Summary of Chapter 5 brings forth recommendations and counsel for future studies of incivility in the workplace.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 204
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
Overview of Results
The concentrated intent and purpose of this study was to address the growing problem of incivility in the workplace and gain additional perspectives and observations from participant responses within a concentrated populace of working graduate students selective of five graduate degree programs. Using a twofold approach first, participants defined civility in the workplace, and second, what incivility in the workplace includes.
The layout of the study focused to quantify the varying levels of incivility in the workplace across distinct demographic filters inclusive of both quantitative and qualitative measurements.
Methodology Design
The focus of this mixed methods study set forth to obtain the perceptions of working adult graduate students enrolled in various accelerated graduate degree programs during the months May through September of 2010.The administration of a paper survey served as an instrument to collect demographic data of 405 research participants and gather the working graduate students‘ perceptions of the implications of incivility in the workplace through quantitative Likert scale questions and qualitative hand written responses. Face-to-face interviews completed the qualitative segment of the study through the orchestration of using a questionnaire consisting of 14 questions to further acquire enriched detail responses from 18 participants.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 205
Findings and Results
Research question 1 asked how do working graduate students define civil and uncivil behavior in the workplace. Questions 1 and 2 from the graduate student workplace incivility survey asked working graduate students to define in their own words definitions of civil behavior and uncivil behavior in the workplace. A definition of incivility defined by (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 457) established a baseline reference for working graduate students to compose individual definitions for civil and uncivil behavior in the workplace. Descriptive statistics revealed a 93% return of participants‘ handwriting a response for civil behavior and a 92% return of participants‘ handwriting a response for uncivil behavior. Findings showed there were variations of definitions defined by few words, as well as elaborate explanations citing specific examples. Definitions for civil and uncivil behaviors generated many perspective similarities‘ within the pool of participant responses deemed as themes noted by frequency and recurrence. Additionally, interview question 1 only asked participants what behaviors do you consider to be uncivil in your workplace.
The importance to ask working graduate students to craft their own definition of civil and uncivil behavior in the workplace was to first examine and view similarities and differences from within a diverse demographic population. A second importance was to examine and determine if any of the responses showed any significant behaviors, whether verbal or non-verbal, that are supported or not supported by literature. Several verbal and non-verbal examples of uncivil behavior shared by participants in this study aligned with examples referenced within the literature. Within this study, there were a significant number of examples referencing the use and misuse of technology during working hours
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 206 which may strengthen gaps in literature regarding E-Incivility and the need for further studies. A third and last noteworthy importance for the purpose of defining civil and uncivil behavior in the workplace was to establish a foreground for the remaining questions of the survey and interview questions. More important to note, each definition of civil and uncivil behavior in the workplace demonstrated the distinct perspectives of how each participants‘ response was reflective of their own belief.
Research question 2 asked ―To what extent do working graduate students perceive incivility as a growing problem in the workplace‖. Question 6 from the graduate student workplace incivility survey asked working graduate students compared to previous years,
―Do you believe workplace incivility is on the rise, above the same as previous years, or on the decline?‖ Interview question 11 asked interview participants ―Do you believe that incivility is a problem in your workplace?‖ Descriptive statistics from survey responses revealed 46% of the participants felt that workplace incivility is on the rise, 42% of the participants felt that workplace incivility is about the same as previous years, and 12% of the participants felt workplace incivility is on the decline. ―Men are twice as likely to be uncivil; men and women are equally likely to be treated uncivilly‖ (Pearson & Porath,
2009, p. 21). Regression analysis presented no strong relationship within the gender or generation of the research participants and there was a belief that there is a rise of incivility in the workplace. The majority of the interview participant responses did support incivility is a problem within their workplace.
The importance to ask working graduate students their belief of incivility in the workplace ―is on the rise‖, ―about the same as previous years‖, or ―on the decline‖ was to gauge the perspectives of working graduate students who represent a diverse populace of
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 207 job occupations. Literature only references incivility in the workplace as a general topic or as problematic within a select few job occupations.
Research question 3 asked in what ways working graduate students relate incivility in their workplace to job satisfaction. Question 12 from the graduate student workplace incivility survey asked working graduate students to indicate how incivility in the workplace relates to employee job satisfaction. Descriptive statistics demonstrated the vast majority of the participants indicated that they strongly agreed (35%) or agreed
(43%) incivility relates to employee job satisfaction. Added quantitative data showed no evidence of a strong relationship within the gender or generation of the research participants and the level to which incivility in the workplace affects job satisfaction.
Interview question 7 asked the participants have you changed jobs or quit due to incivility. According to Pearson and Porath (2009), ―more than half of all targets of incivility consider leaving, and that one in eight follows through on that thought‖ (p. 89).
Findings showed the majority of the participants have not changed jobs or terminated employment based purely upon incivility in the workplace. Detailed insight from the qualitative responses indicated that incivility may have influenced or acted as a contributing factor as part of the decision to seek other employment.
Some of the qualitative responses indicated several participants may have truly perceived the need to change jobs as a result of incivility. The researcher observed the importance of some of the participants need to maintain gainful employment. At one time employees may have been more inclined to change jobs as a result of incivility in the workplace, yet in today‘s depressed economy and the downsizing of jobs; employees may overrule the decision to terminate employment based upon workplace incivility.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 208
Research question 4 asked, ―In what ways do working graduate students perceive incivility as related to their productivity in their workplace?‖ Question 13 from the graduate student workplace incivility survey asked working graduate students to indicate how likely incivility is related to productivity of employees in their workplace.
Descriptive statistics illustrated the majority of participants, 39%, strongly agree or 40% agree as indication of how incivility in the workplace relates to productivity. Additional quantitative statistics supported there was not a visible relationship between the genders of the research participants and the perceived view that workplace incivility relates to productivity of employees and their workplace. There was no qualitative data collected specifically to address research question 4, yet the issue of incivility in the workplace obscuring productivity surfaced from many of the interview responses from question 3 regarding negative impacts of technology in the workplace.
Research question 5 asked ―How do working graduate students perceive their effectiveness in prevention and response to workplace incivility?‖ Questions 7 and 8 from the graduate student workplace incivility survey asked working graduate students how much training they have had in learning to deal with workplace incivility and how prepared do they perceive they are in dealing with workplace incivility. Descriptive statistics revealed 34% of the responses from working graduate students showed the majority percentage have had some training, and 52% perceived they are somewhat prepared in dealing with workplace incivility. Regression analysis proved there was not a visible relationship between the genders of the research participants and the amount of training received to deal with workplace incivility, nor the level of preparedness.
Interview question 13 asked the participants what they are doing about addressing rude
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 209 behavior and incivility in their workplace. Interview participant responses provided insight with regards to how each interviewee chose to address, or not address incivility in their workplace.
The researcher felt a sense of importance to ask working graduate students if a comprehensive policy addressing workplace incivility existed for two reasons. One, it was of interest to understand if workplace incivility is problematic or on the rise as a result of employers not having policies and procedures in place addressing guidelines to define what uncivil behavior is and what behaviors are not acceptable in the workplace.
Secondly, it was also of interest to the researcher to gauge the effectiveness of active comprehensive policies by employees to determine if the policies were rigid as well as foreseen by employees as loosely enforced. An area of importance from the interview responses showed employees perceive incivility within their workplace different largely based on the choice of the employee to take action or remain passive. Regardless if an employer has training for employees or an established comprehensive policy, an employee may still chose to do nothing as a personal choice.
Research question 6 asked ―How do working graduate students perceive their employers effectiveness in prevention and response to workplace incivility‖. Questions 9 and 10 from the graduate student workplace incivility survey asked working graduate students if their employer has a comprehensive policy addressing workplace incivility and if a policy exists, how effective is it. ―There is a limit to the effectiveness of policies, by themselves they are not going to prevent the problem [incivility] from recurring and may even provide the illusion that the problem has been tackled‖ (Gonthier, 2002, p.
181). Slightly more than half of participants stated that their employer does have a
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 210 comprehensive policy addressing workplace incivility and the other half of participants either are not sure or know for certain that their employer does not have a policy. There was no significant relationship between gender and generation regarding how effective their employer‘s comprehensive policy was in addressing incivility in the workplace.
Interview question 5 asked participants ―Do you believe that your management would support you if you report an incident (or incidents) of incivility? Why or why not?‖ The majority of the interviewees affirmed their management would be supportive if they brought forward a report of incivility.
Themes and Observations
RQ#1 Definitions for civil and uncivil behaviors generated many perspective similarities‘ within the pool of participant responses. The outcome of observed themes for civil behavior in the workplace was far less substantial than the number of observed themes for uncivil behaviors in the workplace. Definitions of civil behaviors tended to discuss the importance of employees using courtesy and being respectful in the workplace. Definitions of uncivil behaviors directed attention to a span of behaviors both verbal and non-verbal including specific characteristics flaws and varying harming types of disrespectfulness targeted to be direct or indirect of other employees.
RQ#2 Four distinct themes arose from the qualitative responses within the survey participants; contribute the influences of external factors, uses of technology in the workplace, lack of management support, and changes in employee workspace and work environment as causes for why incivility in the workplace is on the rise. Interview participant responses did not directly correlate to the themes derived from the qualitative
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 211 survey responses, yet many of the interviewees provided awareness to incivility in the workplace.
RQ#3 A detected theme was revealed within some of the interview responses demonstrated a lack of support of direct management as a probable cause for changing job.
RQ#4 There were no noticeable themes to report for this research question.
RQ#5 There were several themes that emerged from the participants‘ responses related to this question. One theme revealed employees using a reactive approach to address uncivil behavior when it occurs. A second theme centered upon using a proactive approach to address workplace incivility in a preventative manner and a third theme emerged one of employees keeping quiet when incivility in the workplace occurs. A fourth and final theme was related to employees wearing earphones to drone out incivility or as an observation to communicate a counter behavior of not paying attention.
RQ#6 Observations from the qualitative responses from survey question 10 communicated many comprehensive policies regarding workplace incivility are not written to a low level of detail to address the scope of all employee behaviors. Another observation by the researcher regarded comprehensive policies are only effective if enforced and followed through with corrective action. A last observation of the researcher is of a curiosity as to what the content includes for incivility in the workplace.
Some employees may be of the understanding that if their employer has a comprehensive policy, it is assumed that the policy addresses rules and regulations of employee conduct, yet may not actually specifically identify incivility.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 212
Connotation
Examination of the qualitative data provided a starting point of entry to view details of behaviors and themes as evidence of incivility in the workplace. The interview participant responses provided the researcher an exceptional personalized opportunity to partake unscripted testimonies from working graduate students on the problems of incivility in many of their workplaces. The face-to-face opportunity allowed the researcher to take a firsthand note of an in person perspective view of incivility in the workplace from the participant. There were many benefits from the vantage point of the researcher for establishing face-to-face interviews. One benefit of the face-to-face interviews allowed the researcher to document each response in its entirety. A second benefit was the availability to ask questions real time in order to ensure clarification and accuracy of participant response. A third benefit of the face-to-face interviews included the observations of each participant‘s tone, body language, and disposition portraying a sense of factual and sincere responses of incivility in his or her workplace.
The researcher is of the strong belief that as a first step for employers to begin the process of restoring civility in the workplace, employers must take heed to listen to their employees speak openly and candidly without judgment or bias about their concerns of incivility. Secondly, a thorough review of employers‘ existing comprehensive policies to create effective guidelines of expected employee civility behaviors with an annual review and revision of all comprehensive policies. For those industries and businesses that do not have policies and procedures regulating workplace incivility, implementing and enforcing a zero tolerance policy helps set expectations and guidelines for employees to adhere to
(Pearson & Porath, 2005). Lastly, a third recommendation includes the need for
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 213 employers to have readily available resources in place for employees to report incivility openly or anonymously with a method to provide assessed feedback.
Proposal of Limitations
The target populace of research participants for this study focused selectively to only obtain the perspectives and opinions from working adult graduate students enrolled at a private four-year Midwest university. Participation in this study was strictly limited to Business Administration, Criminal Justice Administration, Gerontology, Health
Management, and Human Resource Management graduate degree programs.
Undergraduate students enrolled in the same graduate level courses as well as the graduate instructors did not have permission from the researcher to participate in the survey or interview portion for this study. Five months was the duration of time allotted for collective surveying and interviewing participants. This study recognized all participants to have current employment through an employer that was established in a workplace brick and mortar setting. The survey and interview segments of this study as well as the results and findings of this study may not be applicable or comprehensive to working graduate students who hold employment that is conducted from a home or in a virtual office setting. The sample size of participants for this study included employees representing a diverse variety of job occupations, varying job titles, a range of years of employment service completed, and multiple geographical employment locations. All research participants of this study do not represent or adhere to a common standard industry of employment policies and procedures.
Face-to-face interviews conducted in this study may or may not have produced honest responses verses mailed paper surveys, or electronic surveys. Some of the research
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 214 participants in this study may have far less completed years of employment service than other research participants and therefore not witnessed or encountered durations of employee incivility in their workplace. Although the primary investigator was not a direct supervisor to any of the participants in this study, responses from participants in this study may be skewed or non-factual.
The concentrated focus of this study intended to only obtain the perspectives and viewpoints from working adult graduate students enrolled at a private four-year Midwest university. Participation restricted students to only the selected graduate programs. The scope of the populace of graduate students provided an adequate number of research participants to survey. Expansion to include all of the graduate degree programs offered at the private four-year Midwest university as well as the undergrad degree programs may have provided additional data to unveil findings of similar or varying perspectives from those degree programs and populations.
The allotted eight-week timeframe for administering surveys allowed the researcher to cover a large territory in a shortened amount of time for visiting nearly almost all of the graduate degree classrooms. An expansion of time would be required in order to survey additional populaces in other degree programs. Again, the researcher worked within a restrained amount of time to conduct individual participant interviews.
Due to the condensed timeframe, the researcher had to turn away one willing participant for a scheduled interview. Most interview discussions exceeded the expected time duration to complete the questionnaire. Vibrant descriptive details were the direct result of the researcher to not impose a restricted time for each participant to complete the
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 215 questionnaire. The qualitative responses produced extraordinary unambiguous responses which proved to be far more insightful than the quantitative statistical data findings.
Counsel of Future Studies
The participant interviews of this study provided a wealth of insight from the narration of each participant‘s elaborate discussion of their employment history and firsthand experience encountering workplace incivility. The perspective of how each participant chooses to cope or address incivility varied largely based upon individual preference, readiness of available resources provided by their employer. The researcher observed from the context of some participants during the interviews some job occupations and employment settings may be more inclined or isolated to underlying or developing incidents of workplace incivility. One recommendation for future research studies would be to broaden the scope of research participants to determine the severity of incivility in the workplace. Suggestions for future studies would include examinations of small businesses, city/ municipal agencies, and service industries.
A second recommendation for future studies resulted again from shared content of some of the interview discussions where several participants spoke openly about the individual harming effects of workplace incivility to the employee as well as concerned friends and family of the employee. A future study would be suggested to determine the range of mental and physical complications and side effects caused by varying types and frequencies of workplace incivility. It would of interest to measure employee loss of time from work (tardiness, missed time from work, sick days, vacation days, medical leave, etc.).
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 216
A third recommendation would be to repeat this study and tailor research questions to employees who work in cubicles. Some of the interview discussions revealed a virtual walk through of the participant‘s work environment and the structure of cubicle offices. Numerous comments from the responses indicated employees who work in small, confined workspaces within an open floor layout are more subject to exposures of amplifying loud conversations, hysterical laughter, music, misuses of technology, and general office noise. Additionally, several notations of silent employee behaviors viewed as uncivil included ―over decoration‖ of one‘s workspace, excessive clutter, and personal hygiene grooming. An examination of office behaviors would offer a greater insight as to what behaviors may be a direct or indirect result of crammed office quarters.
A last recommendation for future studies would be to examine the effects of e-
Incivility in and out of the workplace. An abundance of qualitative data from the survey participant responses as well as the interview participant discussions provided an outpouring of the increasing negative effects of technology use in the workplace and spiraling lack of control by both employees and management to identify, document, and suppress the influx. Additional studies of technology use in the workplace would be beneficial in order to keep pace with new advancements in technology and eCommunications. The creation of employment standard policies, procedures, mandatory training, is greatly needed to set the boundaries of what is accepted and prohibited internally and externally in order to protect employees and the employer.
Summary
The main objective of this study was to address the current timeliness of workplace incivility as a growing problem within today‘s work environment, the
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 217 damaging effects upon employees, contamination of the work culture and the downward spiral of productivity losses, which may label an industry as unprofessional.
Demonstrated evidence from this study confirms workplace incivility occurrences range from the mild to the severe and the distinction of identifying uncivil behaviors with corrective action is an ongoing problem with potential for growth in many workplaces today. The call for addressing incivility in the workplace is an absolute pressing need in order to proactively begin to remedy the problem.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 218
References
American Bar Association. (2004). Center for Professional Responsibility.
Professionalism Commission. Retrieved from
http://www/abanet.org/cpr/profcommissions.html
Andersson, L. (2001). E-incivility on the rise. HRM Network, p. 1.
Andersson, L., & Pearson, C. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the
workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452-471.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1999.2202131
Barling, J., Rogers, A., & Kelloway, E. (2001). Behind closed doors: in-home workers.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(3), 255-269.
Barling, J., Dekker, I., Loughlin, C., Kelloway, E., Fullagar, C., & Johnson, D. 1996.
Predicting and replication of the organizational and personal consequences of
workplace sexual harassment (Electronic version), Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 11, 4-25.
Billante, N., & Saunders, P. (2002). Why civility matters. Policy, 18(3), 32-36.
Bluman, A. (2008). Elementary statistics. (4 ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Science/Engineering/Math.
Boyd, R. (2006). The value of civility? Urban Studies (Routledge), 43(5/6), 863-878.
Brookhiser, R. (2009). George Washington on leadership. (1st ed.). New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Broughton, P. (2009). Manners maketh management. Management Today, 48-51.
Buhler, P. (2007). Managing in the new millennium. Supervision, 68(9), 16-19.
Carroll-Johnson, R. (2008). Be nice! Oncology Nursing Forum, 35(5), 739.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 219
Carter, R. (2006). Rudeness is running rampant in today. New York Amsterdam News,
97(34), 10-41.
Carter, S. (1999). Civility. New York: Harper Perennia.
Cavaiola, A., & Lavender, N. (2000). Toxic coworkers: How to deal with dysfunctional
people on the job. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.
Clark, C., Farnsworth, J., & Landrum, R. (2009). Development and description of the
incivility in nursing education (ine) survey. Journal of Theory Construction &
Testing, 13(1), 7-15.
Clark, C., & Springer, P. (2007). Thoughts on incivility: Student and faculty perceptions of uncivil behavior in nursing education. Nursing Education Perspectives, 28(2), 93-97. Condor, B. (2001, August 25). Rude awakening: Incivility is pervasive in the workplace, and can affect emotional health. The Gazette, p. W2.
Cone, J., & Foster, S. (2006). Dissertation and theses from start to finish. (2ed.).
Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Cortina, C. (2008). Unseen justice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organization.
Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 55-75.
Cortina, L., & Magley, V. (2009). Patterns and profiles of response to incivility in the
workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(3), 272-288.
Cortina, L., Magley, V., Williams, J., & Langhout, R. (2001). Incivility in the workplace:
incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64-80.
Cosby, B., & Poussaint, A. (2007).Come on people: On the path from victims to victors.
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. della Cava, M. (2009, September 15). What happened to civility? USA Today, p. 01a.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 220
Donkin, R. (2009). It could be time for a name change. Human Resources, 20.
Dublanica, S. (2008). Waiter rant: Thanks for the tip--confessions of a cynical waiter.
New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Elder, B., Seaton, L., & Swinney, L. (2004).Strategies for dealing with professional
incivility--a comparison of the accounting and legal professions. Journal of
Accounting & Finance Research, 12(5), 82-94.
Farkas, S., & Johnson, J. (2002). Aggravating circumstances: A status report on rudeness
in america. A report from public agenda prepared for the pew charitable trust.
Retrieved from: www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/aggravating_circumstances.pdf.
Fashingbauer Cooper, G. (2012). Women shown texting during glen campbell'sgrammy
performance. Retrieved from
http://entertainment.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/12/10392244-women-
shown-texting-during-glen-campbells-grammy-performance
Fisher, J., & Baron, R. (1982). An equity based model of vandalism. Population and
environment, 5: 182-200.
Fox, R. (2001). The future of the tech workplace. Communications of the ACM, 44(3), 9. Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education.
(6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Fritscher-Porter, K. (2003). Taming workplace incivility. OfficePro, 63(5), 22.
Frost, P. (2007). Toxic emotions at work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Gilbertson, D. (2011). Why are police so rude? Because they are trained to be. Mail on
Sunday, p. 27.
Gillette, B. (1999). Rudeness on the rise in the workplace. Mississippi Business Journal,
21(44), 1.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 221
Gleeson, P. (2007). Understanding generational competence related to professionalism:
Misunderstandings that lead to a perception of unprofessional behavior. Journal
of Physical Therapy Education, 21(3), 23-28.
Goldberg, W. (2010). Is it just me? Or is it nuts out there? New York, NY: Hyperion.
Gonthier, G. (2002). Rude awakenings: Overcoming the civility crisis in the workplace.
Chicago, IL: Kaplan Publishing
Gordon, V., & Steele, M. (2005). The advising workplace: Generational differences and
challenges. NACADA Journal, 25(1), 26-30.
Greenberg, J. (2006). Losing sleep over organizational injustice: Attenuating insomniac
reactions to underpayment inequity with supervisory training in interactional
justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 58-69.
Heathfield, S. M. (2012). Baby boomers. Retrieved from http://humanresources.
about.com/od/glossaryb/g/boomers.htm
Hesselbein, F. (1997).The power of civility. Leader To Leader, (5), 6-8.
Hoffman, B., & Nadelson, L. (2010). Motivational engagement and video gaming: A
mixed methods study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(3),
245-270.
Hutton, S. (2006). Workplace incivility: State of the science. Journal of Nursing Administration, 36(1), 22-28.
Hutton, S., & Gates, D. (2008).Workplace incivility and productivity losses among direct
care staff. AAOHN Journal, 56(4), 168-175.
HR Briefing (1999). Civility: Is it dead in the workplace?. HR Briefing , p.3. Indiana University (2000). Survey on academic incivility at Indiana University.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 222
Johnson, P., & Indvik, J. (2001). Rudeness at work: Impulse over restraint. Public
Personnel Management, 30(4), 457-465.
Jones, J. (2001). Cube-i-tizing of our offices, but for how long?. Mississippi Business
Journal, 23(44), 4.
Karl, K., & Sutton, C. (1998). Job values in today. Public Personnel Management, 27(4),
515-527.
Keating, M. (2008). Incivility: More courts are treating rudeness as a reason for
sanctions. ABA Journal, 94(4), 55-56.
Kerfoot, K. (2007). Leadership, civility, and the 'no jerks' rule. Nursing Economic$,
25(4), 233-234.
Kerfoot, K. (2008). On leadership. Leadership, civility, and the 'no jerks' rule. Nursing
Economic$, 28(2), 149-150.
Kinsman, M. (2002, August 6). Author says simple tips on civility can make work more
bearable. The Post-Crescent.
Krebs, R. L. (1976). Disrespect: A study in hospital relationships. Hospital & Health Service Administration, 21(1), 67-72.
Kusy, M., & Holloway, E. (2009).Toxic workplace!: Managing toxic personalities and
their systems of power. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lancaster, L., & Stillman, D. (2003). When generations collide: Who they are. why they
clash. how to solve the generational puzzle at work. New York, NY: Harper
Business.
Landers, A. (1994, July 19). Clipping nails at work very rude behavior; the boss was right
to point out the howler: [final edition]. Edmonton Journal, p. E6.
Lee, C. (1999). The death of civility. Training, 36, 24-30.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 223
Li, D. (2002, November 26). Wapner in jab at Judy. New York Times, p. 025.
Liberty Mutual. (2004). Liberty Mutual workplace safety index: The direct costs and
leading causes of workplace injuries. Boston: Author.
Lieber, L. (2010). How HR can assist in managing the four generations in today‘s
workplace. Employment Relations Today (Wiley), 36(4), 85-91.
Lipscomb, T., Totten, J., Cook, R., & Lesch, W. (2007). Cellular phone etiquette among
college students. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(1), 46-56.
Locke, J. (1964). Some thoughts concerning education. Abridged and edited, with an
introduction and commentary by F.W. Garforth. Woodbury, NY: Barron's
Educational Series.
Lueck, T. (2007). To serve, protect, and mind their manners. The New York Time, p.
A.25.
Lunau, K. (2011). Lawyer behaving badly. MacLean’s, 124(10), 22-23.
MacLeod, I. (2001, November 19). Bad bedside manners creating ill will in patients: The future of health care. Edmonton Journal, p. A1. Maerz, M. (2011, January 19). The reality is that we love mean judges; Simon Cowell's
critiques helped make 'American idol.' can it survive being nice? Los Angeles
Times, p. D.1.
Martin, C. (2004). Bridging the generation gap(s).Nursing, 34(12), 62-63.
Mattice, C. (2012). Combating incivility in the office. OfficePro, 72(1), 26-29.
McGrath, G. (2006). Manners maketh the man (& woman) is that still true in today‘s
workplace? Accountancy Ireland, 38(2), 67-68.
McKinne, M. (2008). A quantitative and qualitative inquiry into classroom incivility.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 224
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri), Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses. (304532678).
Milam, A., Spitzmueller, C., & Penney, L. (2009). Investigating individual differences
among targets of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 14(1), 58-69.
Montgomery, K., Kane, K. & Vance, C. (2004). Accounting for differences in norms of
respect: A study of assessment of incivility through the lenses of race and gender.
Group & Organization Management, 29(2), 248-268.
Mowry, M. (2008). Etiquette is never obsolete. Business NH Magazine, 25(1), 12.
Muir, C. (2000). Can we all get along? The interpersonal challenge at work. Academy of
Management Executive, 14(4), 143-144.
Nye, E., Bosco, S. M., & Harvey, D. (2009).What is the workplace coming to? (pp. 386-
391). Proceedings for the Northeast Region Decision Sciences Institute (NEDSI).
Oberle, J. (2011). Combating the e-mail problem. Public Management, 93(3), 22-23.
Osterfelt, S. (2004). A major dis-connect. DM Review, 14(5), 80.
Ostovitz, M. (2011, March 15). Showtime's "shameless"..unapologetically so. The Comet
Catonsville High School. Retrieved from
http://my.hsj.org/Schools/Newspaper/tabid/100/view/frontpage/articleid/423426/n
ewspaperid/1559/Showtimes_ShamelessUnapologetically_So.aspx
Ostrow, J. (2004, November 15). 'house' offers substance as it short-sheets bedside
manner hughlaurie as a mean, talented doctor anchors alluring fox series: [final
edition]. Denver Post, p. F.01.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 225
Pearson, C. (2003). Incivility and aggression at work. Retrieved from
http://www.envisionworks.net/media/incivilityatwork.htm
Pearson, C. Andersson, L., & Porath, C. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace
incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29(2), 123-137.
Pearson, C., Andersson, L., & Wegner, J. (2001). When workers flout convention: A
study of workplace incivility. Human Relations, 54, 1387–1419.
Pearson, C., & Porath, C. (2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of
workplace incivility: No time for "nice"? Think again. Academy of Management
Executive, 19(1), 7-18.
Pearson, C., & Porath, C. (2009). The cost of bad behavior. New York: Portfolio.
Poe, A. (2000). An office undivided. HR Magazine, 45(2), 58.
Porath, C., & Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness on
task performance and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1181-
1197.
Porath, C., Overbeck, J., & Pearson, C. (2008). Picking up the gauntlet: How individuals
respond to status challenges. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(7), 1945-
1980.
Porath, C. & Pearson, C. (2009). How toxic colleagues corrode performance. Harvard
Business Review, 87(4), 24.
Porath, C., Macinnis, D., & Folkes, V. (2010). Witnessing incivility among employees:
Effects on consumer anger and negative inferences about companies. Journal of
Consumer Research, 37(2), 292-303.
Post, P. (2010). Rude awakening. Training, 47(1), 40.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 226
Productivity. (2009). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/productivity.
Profile of a Changing Workforce. (2001). Employee Recruitment & Retention
Handbook (pp. 1-29). American Management Association International.
Ramsey, R. (2008). The case for civility in the workplace. Supervision, 69(12), 3-6.
Reddick, E. (2007a). Elevator etiquette and reflections upon the lost art of good manners.
The Enterprise Salt Lake City, 36(37), 18-21.
Reddick, E. (2007b). Don't let technology destroy your professionalism. Enterprise/Salt
Lake City, 36(47), 10-11.
Rennar, H. (2007). In search of true work/life balance. Financial Executive, 23(3), 57-59.
Rodriguez Mosquera, P., Manstead, A., & Fischer, A. (2002). The role of honour
concerns in emotional reactions to offences. Cognition & Emotion, 16(1), 143-
163.
Sargent, N. (2002, April 13). The San Diego Union Tribune Michael Kinsman Column.
San Diego Union-Tribune.
Schatz, R. (1984). Connecticut's working class in the 1950's: A catholic perspective.
Labor History, 25(1), 83-101.
Shortman, M. (2002). Rude awakening. American Demographics, 24(7), 18.
Sidle, S. (2009). Workplace incivility: How should employees and managers respond?
Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4), 88-89.
Stack, L. (2003). Employees behaving badly. HR Magazine, 48(10), 111-116.
Stoeltje, M. (2001, August 31). Jerks at work; most offices seethe with rudeness, study show: Metro edition. San Antonio Express-News, p. 1.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 227
Sutton, R. (2007). The no asshole rule: Building a civilized workplace and surviving one
that isn't. New York, NY: Business Plus.
The Virtual Workforce. (2007). Corporate Agility (pp. 129-159). American
Management Association International.
Thomas, O. (2009). "You lie!" Rude dude. Retrieved from
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/You-Lie-Rude-Congressd-
58287872.html
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010). United states department of labor bureau of labor statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ Vermont Bar Association Membership. (1989). Guidelines of professional courtesy.
Retrieved from https://www.vtbar.org/FOR ATTORNEYS/Practice
Resources/Guidelines of Professional Courtesy.aspx
Veronikis, E. (2009). Home work telecommuters balance, pros, cons of jobs outside
cubes. Central Penn Business Journal, 25(30), 13-17.
Wachs, J. (2009). Workplace incivility, bullying, and mobbing. AAOHN Journal, 57(2),
88.
Wilson, G. (2011). Broadcaster calls Serena Williams "ass clown". Retrieved from
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/sports/Brtoadcaster-calls-Serena-an-Ass-
Clown-129711253.html
Wilson, I. (1978). The future of the world of work. Advanced Management Journal,
43(4), 4-13.
Workforce. (2009). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/workforce.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 228
Workplace. (2009). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/workplace.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 229
Appendices
A. Dr. Mike McKinne Permission
B. Graduate Student Workplace Incivility Survey
C. Informed Consent for Survey Participation in Research Activities
D. Follow up Interview Questionnaire
E. Informed Consent for Interview Participation in Research Activities
F. Permission from Dean to Survey Working Graduate Students
G. Department Chairs Permission to Survey Classes
H. Calendar Schedule of Survey Classes
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 230
Appendix A
Greene, Ashley E
From: M McKinne [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 3:02 PM To: Greene, Ashley E Subject: Re: QUESTION: Is your dissertation survey available?
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red
Absolutely. Consider this e-mail my written permission.
Dr. Mike A. McKinneEd.D January 10, 2010
On Jan 10, 2010, at 1:25 PM, Greene, Ashley E wrote:
> Hi Mike, Thank you SO much for sending your survey. May I have your permission> to modify your survey (edit/change some of the questions/ and response> choices from classroom incivility to workplace incivility)? I would> also want to credit you in my resources for use of your survey.>> Thanks! ______> From: M McKinne [mailto:[email protected]]> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 9:30 AM> To: Greene, Ashley E> Subject: Re: QUESTION: Is your dissertation survey available?> Importance: High>><< File: Survey_5534005_1062007.pdf >><< File: > Survey_5534005_1132007.pdf >><< File: Survey_5634019_1062007.pdf>>><< File: Survey_5760231_1132007.pdf >><< File: > Survey_5760231_11272007.pdf >><< File: ATT00001..txt>>>
1
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 231
Appendix B
Graduate Student Demographics
1. Please select your current graduate degree major Mark your response using an "X" in the appropriate box.
Business Administration Criminal Justice Management Gerontology Health Management Human Resource Management
2. Please select your gender Mark your response using an "X" in the appropriate box.
Male Female Decline to respond
3. What is your Race or Ethnic identification?
Decline to respond
4. In what range of years were you born? Mark your response using an "X" in the appropriate box.
1925 - 1945 1946 - 1964 1965 - 1980 1981 - 1999 Decline to respond
5. What is your current job occupation? (If not employed at this time,
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 232 please provide detail of your most recent job occupation).
6. Please select the number of years of service you have completed in your current job occupation with your employer. Mark your response using an "X" in the appropriate box.
0 - 2 3 - 5 5 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 +
7. What is your job title classification? Mark your response using an "X" in the appropriate box.
Management Non-Management Hourly Temp/Seasonal Self Employed Other
8. Please select the highest level of education you have completed Mark your response using an "X" in the appropriate box.
High School / GED Associate Degree Bachelors Degree Post Bachelors Degree Graduate Degree Post Graduate Degree
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 233
Doctoral
Graduate Student Workplace Incivility Survey
Workplace incivility can be defined as "low -intensity, deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others" (Andersson& Pearson, 1999, p.457).
1. What is your definition of civil behavior in the workplace?
2. What is your definition of uncivil behavior in the workplace?
3. Listed below are some employee behaviors you might have experienced in your workplace during the past calendar year (2009). Please indicate if you think the behavior institutes "incivility" in the workplace. Mark your response using an "X" in the appropriate box.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 234
Under Some Always Conditions Never N/A
Acting bored or apathetic Cell phone disruptions Loud talking in the workplace Loud talking on cell phone Holding conversations in high traffic areas Eating smelly food Excessive use of perfume/cologne Excessive laughter and horseplay Harassing comments (racial, ethnic, gender)directed at you Harassing comments or behavior directed at you Hostile verbal attacks or challenges directed at you Inappropriate e-mails to you Not paying attention in meetings Not taking notes during meetings Other harassing comments directed at you Reluctance to answer direct questions Sarcastic remarks or gestures, staged yawning or eye rolling Sleeping on the job Arriving late to work Arriving late to a meeting Being unprepared Employees challenging your knowledge or credibility in front of peers Employees' conversations distracting other employee Employees' conversations distracting you
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 235
Employees' creating tension by dominating discussion Absenteeism Employees leaving work early Threats of physical harm against you Using a computer during working hours for non related work Vulgarity directed at you Over use of text abbreviations/acronyms
Other (If there are any other behaviors in the workplace that institute "incivility" please list them below )
4. If you experienced any employee behaviors during the past calendar year(2009) that caused a disruption or were uncomfortable for you, which of the following actions did you do in response? Mark your response using an "X" in the appropriate box. Yes No N/A I addressed the employee(s)involved during working hours I ignored the problem or decided not to take action I made work more fun or entertaining I assigned/offset work assignments to pacify disruptive employees I reported an employee's behavior to management, human resources or law enforcement I sought advice from co-workers or other employee resources I spoke with the employee(s)involved outside of work
Other (please specify below)
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 236
5. How EFFECTIVE was the action? Mark your response using an "X" in the appropriate box.
Very Somewhat Not Not Effective Effective Effective Applicable I addressed the employee(s)involved during working hours I ignored the problem or decided not to take action I made work more fun or entertaining I assigned/offset work assignments to pacify disruptive employees I reported an employee's behavior to management, human resources or law enforcement I sought advice from co-workers or other employee resources I spoke with the employee(s)involved outside of work
Other (please specify) Feel free to clarify or elaborate on your responses below
6. Compared to previous years, do you believe workplace incivility is Mark your response using an "X" in the appropriate box.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 237
On the rise About the same as previous years On the decline
If you believe incivility is on the rise, would you provide an explanation why you believe this is the case
7. How much training have you had in learning how to deal with workplace incivility? Mark your response using an "X" in the appropriate box.
Ample training Some training A little training No training
Other (please specify below)
8. How prepared do you feel you are in dealing with workplace incivility? Mark your response using an "X" in the appropriate box.
Very prepared Some what prepared A little prepared Not prepared at all
Other (please specify below)
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 238
9. Does your employer have a comprehensive policy addressing workplace incivility? Mark your response using an "X" in the appropriate box.
Yes No Unsure
10. If your employer has a comprehensive workplace incivility policy, how EFFECTIVE do you believe the policy is? Mark your response using an "X" in the appropriate box.
Very effective Some what effective A little effective Not effective at all Non Applicable
Other (please specify below)
11. Some managers argue that workplace civility is the responsibility of both employees and managers. Sometimes managers can do things (or not do things) that contribute to incivility in the workplace, such as distancing themselves from employees, lack of adequate resources to perform job responsibilities, or being overly permissive of employees disruptive behavior. Do you think that you might contribute to workplace incivility in any way? Mark your response using an "X" in the appropriate box.
Yes Possibly No Unsure
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 239
Other (please elaborate)
12. Please indicate how incivility in the workplace relates to employee job satisfaction. Mark your response using an "X" in the appropriate box.
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
13. Please indicate how likely incivility is related to productivity of employees and their workplace? Mark your response using an "X" in the appropriate box.
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
14. How has technology contributed towards incivility in the workplace? Please provide detail.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 240
Thank you for your time and input !
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 241
Appendix C
Lindenwood University School of Education 209 S. Kingshighway St. Charles, Missouri 63301
Informed Consent for Participation in Research Activities
Incivility in the Workplace: Perceptions of Working Adults Enrolled in an Accelerated Graduate Degree Program
Principal Investigator: Ashley Greene Telephone: 314-503-5652 E-mail: [email protected]
1. You are invited to participate in a research study conducted byAshley Greene, a doctoral student at Lindenwood University. The purpose of this research is focused on the individual perceptions of Lindenwood University Individualized Education (LCIE) graduate students who are employed and working towards the completion of a graduate degree within one of the following five degree programs: Business Administration, Criminal Justice Administration, Gerontology, Health Management, and Human Resource Management.
Individual LCIE graduate student perceptions will be researched in the following areas: •Definition of civil and uncivil behavior. •Workplace incivility as a growing problem. •Impact of incivility on job satisfaction. •Incivility as counterproductive to employees and their workplace. •Employees and employers proactively preventing reoccurrences of incivility in the workplace. •Types (verbal, non-verbal) of uncivil behavior that contribute towards a toxic workplace. •Use of technology as uncivil behavior in the workplace.
2. a) Your participation will involve
•Completing a paper survey during class time.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 242
b) The amount of time involved in your participation will be approximately 10-15 minutes.
•Approximately 649 Lindenwood University Individualized Education (LCIE) graduate students will be involved in this research.
3.There are no anticipated risks associated with this research.
4.There are no direct benefits for you participating in this study. However, your participation will contribute
to the knowledge about Incivility in the Workplace.
5.Your participation is voluntary and you may choose not to participate in this research study or to withdraw your consent at any time. You may choose not to answer any questions that you do not want to answer. You will NOT be penalized in any way should you choose not to participate or to withdraw.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 243
6.Your responses to this survey are completely anonymous. I will do everything I can to protect your privacy. As part of this effort, your identity will not be revealed in any publication or presentation that may result from this study and the information collected will remain in the possession of the investigator in a safe location.
7. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, or if any problems arise, you may call the Investigator, Ashley Greene, (314) 503-5652, or their Faculty Advisor, Dr. Deb Ayres, (636) 949-4405. You may also ask questions of or state concerns regarding your participation to the Lindenwood Institutional Review Board (IRB) through contacting Dr. Jann Weitzel, Vice President for Academic Affairs at 636-949-4846.
I have read this consent form and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I will also be given a copy of this consent form for my records. I consent to my participation in the research described above.
Participant's Signature Date Participant‘s Printed Name
Signature of Principal Date Investigator Printed Name Investigator
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 244
Appendix D
Follow up Interview Questionnaire
1. What behaviors do you consider to be uncivil in your workplace?
2. Do you believe that technology has negatively impacted civility in your workplace? If ―yes‖, how so?
3. Do you believe communicating though technology (i.e. blogs, cell phones, e-mail, instant messaging, texting, tweeting) has had a negative impact on civility in your workplace? In what specific ways have these forms of technology negatively impacted your workplace?
4. If you could address specific acts of rude behavior or incivility that need to be addressed by your management, what would they be?
5. Do you believe that your management would support you if you reported an incident (or incidents) of incivility? Why or why not?
6. Have you reported incivility in your workplace to other departments (i.e. human resources, ethics, legal, security, other)? If yes, what was the outcome and resolution? If not, why did you not report it?
7. Have you changed jobs or quit a job due to incivility? If yes, please describe.
8. How does incivility in your workplace affect (emotional, health, physical, other) you? Describe specific examples as to how you were affected?
9. Have you been approached by a co-worker or your management regarding a rude behavior or uncivil act you may have unintentionally instigated? If so, describe in detail.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 245
10. What do you believe are the contributing factors that cause employees to act uncivil in your workplace?
11. Do you believe that incivility is a problem in your workplace? If yes, please provide detail. If no, please explain why you believe why not.
12. What workplace settings or areas do you see/observe rude behaviors and incivility occurring most?
13. What are you currently doing about addressing rude behavior and incivility in your workplace?
14. Do you have any final thoughts, personal experience in dealing with incivility in the workplace or ideas that have NOT been addressed in my survey or this follow- up questionnaire? Feel free to elaborate.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 246
Appendix E
Lindenwood University School of Education 209 S. Kingshighway St. Charles, Missouri 63301
Informed Consent for Participation in Research Activities
Incivility in the Workplace: Perceptions of Working Adults Enrolled in an Accelerated Graduate Degree Program
Principal Investigator: Ashley Greene Telephone: 314-503-5652 E-mail: [email protected]
1. You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Ashley Greene, a doctoral student at Lindenwood University. The purpose of this research is focused on the individual perceptions of Lindenwood University Individualized Education (LCIE) graduate students who are employed and working towards the completion of a graduate degree within one of the following five degree programs: Business Administration, Criminal Justice Administration, Gerontology, Health Management, and Human Resource Management.
Individual LCIE graduate student perceptions will be researched in the following areas: •Definition of civil and uncivil behavior. •Workplace incivility as a growing problem. •Impact of incivility on job satisfaction. •Incivility as counterproductive to employees and their workplace. •Employees and employers proactively preventing reoccurrences of incivility in the workplace. •Types (verbal, non-verbal) of uncivil behavior that contribute towards a toxic workplace. •Use of technology as uncivil behavior in the workplace.
2. a) Your participation will involve
•Completing a face to face interview.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 247
b) The amount of time involved in your participation will be approximately 45 minutes.
•Approximately 15 Lindenwood University Individualized Education (LCIE) graduate students will be involved in this research.
3.There are no anticipated risks associated with this research.
4.There are no direct benefits for you participating in this study. However, your participation will contribute
to the knowledge about Incivility in the Workplace.
5.Your participation is voluntary and you may choose not to participate in this research study or to withdraw your consent at any time. You may choose not to answer any questions that you do not want to answer. You will NOT be penalized in any way should you choose not to participate or to withdraw.
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 248
6.Your responses to this survey are completely anonymous. I will do everything I can to protect your privacy. As part of this effort, your identity will not be revealed in any publication or presentation that may result from this study and the information collected will remain in the possession of the investigator in a safe location.
7. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, or if any problems arise, you may call the Investigator, Ashley Greene, (314) 503-5652, or their Faculty Advisor, Dr. Deb Ayres, (636) 949-4405. You may also ask questions of or state concerns regarding your participation to the Lindenwood Institutional Review Board (IRB) through contacting Dr. Jann Weitzel, Vice President for Academic Affairs at 636-949-4846.
I have read this consent form and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I will also be given a copy of this consent form for my records. I consent to my participation in the research described above.
Participant's Signature Date Participant‘s Printed Name
Signature of Principal Date Investigator Printed Name
Investigator
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 249
Appendix F
Greene, Ashley E
From: Kemper, Dan [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:13 PM To: Greene, Ashley E Cc: Holden, Angela D.; Manjounes, Cindy; Lerman, Mark; St. Clair, Terry Subject: RE: REQUEST: Discussion of MBA Program
Ashley, You have my approval to survey our students. Please contact the Department Chairs so they can assist you with this process.
D.
Daniel W. Kemper, Dean Accelerated Degree Programs (LCIE) Lindenwood
University 400 N. Kingshighway St. Charles, MO 63301 Telephone: 636-
949-4501
-----Original Message----From: Greene, Ashley E
[mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009
8:54 AM To: Kemper, Dan Subject: FW: REQUEST: Discussion of MBA Program
Importance: High
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 250
Appendix G
Hello,
My name is Ashley Greene and I am an EdD Instructional Leadership doctoral student at Lindenwood University. I am actively writing my dissertation regarding Incivility in the Workplace: Perceptions of Working Adults Enrolled Various Accelerated Graduate Degree Programs. My research study includes a survey of the perceptions of Lindenwood University Individualized Education (LCIE) graduate students who are actively enrolled in the 2010 Winter Quarter. I have chosen to survey using a paper copy questionnaire, the LCIE graduate students within the following larger population degree programs: Business Administration, Criminology, Gerontology, Health Management, and Human Resource Management.
I am writing to request your permission to conduct a survey to LCIE graduate students within your cluster courses who voluntarily agree to participate. Survey completion should take approximately 10-15 minutes. With the permission of your instructors, I am more than willing to pre-arrange an agreeable time to distribute surveys during one of their scheduled class (es).
Survey responses from each LCIE) graduate student who chooses to participant are completely anonymous. Participation is absolutely voluntary and participants withhold the discretion to withdraw from this study at any time.
Questions about this survey as well as coordination for a scheduling a time to distribute surveys may be directed to the researcher. Contact information is as follows:
Phone: 314-503-5652 E-mail: [email protected]
Thank you in advance for your review and assistance with this study.
Kind Regards,
Ashley Greene
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 251
Appendix H
MAY
Time SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY DEGREE PROGRAM
1 BUSINESS
5:30pm CRIMINOLOGY
6:00pm GERONTOLOGY
6:30pm HEALTH MGMT
7:00pm HUMAN RESOURCES
7:30pm RESEARCH ASSISTANT
8:00pm
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
5:30pm
6:00pm
6:30pm
7:00pm
7:30pm
8:00pm
WEEK6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
5:30pm
6:00pm
6:30pm
7:00pm
7:30pm
8:00pm
WEEK 7 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
5:30pm
6:00pm
6:30pm
7:00pm
7:30pm
8:00pm
WEEK8 23 24 26 27 28 29
5:30pm
6:00pm
6:30pm
7:00pm
7:30pm
8:00pm
WEEK9 30 31
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 252
5:30pm
6:00pm MEMORIAL DAY
6:30pm NO CLASSES
7:00pm
7:30pm
8:00pm
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 253
JUNE DEGREE Time SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY PROGRAM
WEEK 9 1 2 3 4 5 BUSINESS
5:30pm CRIMINOLOGY
6:00pm GERONTOLOGY
6:30pm HEALTH MGMT HUMAN 7:00pm RESOURCES RESEARCH 7:30pm ASSISTANT
8:00pm WEEK 10 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
5:30pm
6:00pm
6:30pm
7:00pm
7:30pm
8:00pm WEEK 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
5:30pm
6:00pm
6:30pm
7:00pm
7:30pm
8:00pm WEEK 12 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
5:30pm
6:00pm
6:30pm
7:00pm
7:30pm
8:00pm
27 28 29 30
WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 254
Vita Auctoris
Ashley Greene is from St. Louis, Missouri. She joined The Boeing Company in
2000 as a business analyst in the Defense, Space & Security division and has since held various positions in the Finance capacity including: Business Operations, Integrated
Scheduling, Finance Integration, and currently supporting Employee Development and
Communications.
She is an active member for the Amelia Earhart Society (AES) – East Chapter,
Arts and Education Council of Greater St. Louis, Institute for Civility in the Government, and Friends of CHARACTERplus. She is an active volunteer for the following organizations: Rebuilding Together St. Louis, Mary Ryder Home, St. Louis Crisis
Nursery, and Room at the Inn.
She is a 1997 graduate of Lindenwood College, where she earned a Bachelor‘s in
Fine Arts degree in Studio Arts from Lindenwood College. In 2004 she earned a Masters of Business Administration with an emphasis in Human Resource Management from
University of Phoenix. She completed her Doctorate in Instructional Leadership from
Lindenwood University April, 2012.